Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P. SINHA, S. JAFER IMAM AND J.L. KAPUR, JJ.
Razia Begum Appellant
Versus
Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 695 of 1957.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, Mr. H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India, Mr. N. C. Chatterjee, Senior Advocate, (M/s. Syed Mohasim, Akbar Ali Mossavi, H. J. Umrigar and O. N. Srivastava, Advocates, and M/s. J. B. Dadachanji, S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co., with them), for Appellant; M/s. Purshottam Tricumdas, Senior Advocate, (Mr. Anwarull Pasha, Advocate and Mr. G. Gopalkrishnan, Advocate of M/s. Gagrat & Co., with them), (for No. 1); Sir Sultan Ahmed and Mr. A. Ramaswami Iyengar, Senior Advocates, (M/s. C. Chakravarthy and S. Ranganathan, Advocates and Mr. G. Gopalkrishnan of M/s. Gagrat & Co., with them), (for No. 2) and M/s. G. S. Pathak and A. V. Vishwanatha Sastri, Senior Advocates, (Messrs. Mohd. Yunus Sallem, Ghulam Ahmed Khan, Choudhary Akhtar Hussain, Shaukat Hussain and Sardar Bahadur, Advocates, with them) (for No. 3), for Respondents.
-Is generally not one of initial jurisdiction of the Court, but of judicial jurisdiction which has to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case – Razia Begum v. Anwar Begum, AIR 1958 SC 886. Sub-rule (1) permits the addition of plaintiff, while sub-rule (2) of the Rule permits the addition of both -plaintiffs and defendants - Ramprasad v. Vijai Kumar, AIR 1967 SC 278. Limitation Act makes no distinction between sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2).
-A person cannot be said to be having direct interest in the subject-matter in dispute merely because he would be indirectly or commercially affected by the result of the litigation
-where the Court has exercised its jurisdiction properly or has not exceeded its jurisdiction revision does not lie
-Order 12, Rule 6 must be read with Rule 5 of the Order 8 with particular reference to the proviso -
The core legal principle established in this case concerns the scope and discretion involved in adding parties to a suit under the relevant procedural rules. The court clarified that the decision to add parties, particularly respondents, is generally a matter of judicial discretion rather than initial jurisdiction, and must be exercised based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case (!) (!) .
Furthermore, the court emphasized that for a person to be added as a party, they must have a direct interest in the subject matter of the litigation, especially when the dispute involves rights or interests in property. However, when the litigation pertains to a declaration of status or legal character, the requirement of direct interest may be relaxed if the court finds that the inclusion of such parties would enable a more complete and effective adjudication of the controversy (!) (!) .
The court also distinguished between declarations of status under specific statutory provisions and property rights, noting that declarations concerning status can have far-reaching implications affecting not only the parties but also persons claiming through them, including future generations. Such declarations are not merely binding on the parties but can extend to persons claiming through them, provided the court exercises its discretion judiciously and with regard to the interests involved (!) (!) .
Additionally, the court highlighted that the exercise of discretion in adding parties should be based on whether their presence is necessary to effectually and completely settle all questions involved in the suit. The mere possibility that a declaration could impact the rights of others does not automatically justify their inclusion unless their involvement is essential for a comprehensive adjudication (!) (!) .
In summary, the principle underscores that the addition of parties in cases involving status or legal character is a matter of judicial discretion, guided by the necessity of their presence for a full and effective resolution of the dispute, rather than an automatic or initial jurisdictional requirement.
Judgment
B. P. SINHA, J. : This appeal by special leave is directed against the concurring judgment and orders of the courts below, allowing the intervention of respondents 1 and 2, and adding them as defendants 2 and 3, in the suit instituted by the appellant against her alleged husband, now respondent No. 3, who was the sole defendant in the suit as originally framed. The main question in controversy in this appeal, is the true construction of sub-r. (2) of R. 10 of O. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and its application to the facts of this case, which are given below:
2. On 12-4-1957, the plaintiff - appellant in this Court - instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises against the third respondent who is the second son of His Exalted Highness the Nizam of Hyderabad, and who will, hereinafter be referred to as the Prince. In the plaint, she alleged that she is the lawfully married wife of the Prince, the marriage ceremony (Nikah) having been solemnized in accordance with the Shia Law, by a Shia Mujtahid on 19-10-1948. The plaintiff also averred that the issue of the marriage, were three daughters aged 8, 7 and 5 years; that the fact of the marriage was known to all persons acquainted with the Prince; that there was a pre-nuptial agreement, whereby, the Prince agreed to pay Rs. 2,000 per month to the plaintiff as kharch-e-pandan; that the Prince stopped the payment of the allowance aforesaid of Rs. 2,000 per month, since January, 1953, without any reasons and in contravention of the said agreement. On these allegations, she asked for the following two declarations:
"1 That the plaintiff be declared to be the legally-wedded wife (Mankuha) of the defendant,
2. That a decree be passed in favour of this plaintiff against the defendant declaring her to be entitled to receive from the defendant I. G. Rs. 2,000 per month as Kharch-e-pandan".
It may by noted that she did not make any claim for arrears of the allowance aforesaid since the date the Prince is alleged to have stopped payment of the same. Only ten days later, on 22-4-1957, the Prince filed his written statement, admitting the entire claim of the plaintiff for the two declarations aforesaid. On that very date, an application under O. 1, R. 10 of the C. P. C., on behalf of (1) Sahebzadi Anwar Begum, and (2) Prince Shahamat Ali Khan, minor, under the guardianship of his mother, the said Sahebzadi was made. They are respondents 1 and 2 respectively in this Court. The Sahebzadi, respondent No. 1, claimed to be the "lawful and legal wedded wife" of the Prince, and respondent No. 2, the son of the Prince by the first respondent. In their petition, they stated inter alia that
"The plaintiff herself has stated in the plaint that the defendant is trying to suppress the facts of his marriage with the plaintiff so that the members of his family should conclude that the plaintiff is not his Nikah wife, and the defendant is interested in denying the rights and status of the plaintiff. The petitioners on being joined as parties to the suit will be equally interested in denying the marriage of the plaintiff and her rights and status".
"That the petitioners have reasons to believe that the above suit is a result of collusion. The object and motive of the plaintiff in instituting the above suit is to adversely affect the relationship of the petitioners and the defendant and also to deprive the rights and interests of the petitioners in the defendant s estate".
On 15-6-1957, the plaintiff made an answer to the petition for intervention, filed by the respondents 1 and 2 aforesaid. She denied the right of the interveners to be impleaded in that suit, and asserted that the "possibility of the rights of the petitioners being infringed are very remote, contingent upon their or plaintiff surviving the defendant or other circumstances which may or may not arise". She also founded her objection on the ground that, having regard to the admission of the defendant in his written statement, "there is
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
