SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(SC) 350

Supreme Court of India
B.S. CHAUHAN & FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.
Ramji Gupta & Another – Appellants
Versus
Gopi Krishan Agrawal (D) & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 629 of 2004 With Civil Appeal No. 630 of 2004
Decided On : 11-04-2013

Headnote:(A) Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Secs. 14(2), 30 — Provision — Interpretation — If a Hindu female had been given only a ‘life interest,

       through Will or gift or any other document as referred in Sec. 14, Act 1956, the said rights would not stand crystallised into the absolute ownership as interpreting the provisions to the effect that she would acquire absolute ownership/title into the proeprty by virtue of the provisions of Sec. 14(1), Act 1956, and the provisions of Sec. 14(2) and 30, Act 1956 would become otiose — Also, Sec. 14(2) carves out an exception to rule provided in Sec. 14(1) that if a property was acquired by a Hindu female by a Will or gift, giving her only a life interest — Then it would remain the same even after commencement of the Act 1956 — And such a Hindu female cannot acquire absolute title.

        (Para 6)

       (B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Sec. 11 — Res-judicata — Principle of — Requirements — In order to operate as res judicata, the finding must dispose a matter that is directly and substantially in issue in the former suit, and that the said issue must have been heard and finally decided by the court trying such suit — A matter which is collaterally or incidentally in issue for the purpose of deciding a matter which is directly in issue in the case, cannot be made the basis for a plea of res judicata. (Para 7)

       (C) Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1872, Sec. 23 and Clause (35) of Schedule II — Jurisdiction — Scope and extent — Small Causes Court have no right to adjudicate upon the title of the property — It can not adjudicate upon the issue of title — Also, procedure adopted in the trial of a case before the Small Causes Court is summary in nature — Cl. (35), Schedule II, Act 1872 had made such Court a Court of limited jurisdiction — A question regarding title in a small cause suit may be regarded as incidental only to the substantial issue in the suit — Thus, where a finding regarding title to immovable property is rendered by a Small Causes Court — Res-judicata cannot be pleaded as a bar in the subsequent regular suit for the determination or enforcement of any right or interest in the immovable property.

        (Paras 7 to 9)

Judgment :-

Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

C.A.No.629 of 2004

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 6.9.2002, passed by the High Court of Allahabad in CMWP No.25785 of 2002, by way of which, the High Court has dismissed the writ petition of the appellants, affirming the judgment and decree of the Small Causes Court dated 20.4.2001, which stood affirmed by the Revisional Court, vide judgment and decree dated 13.5.2002. Civil Appeal No.630 of 2004 has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25.2.2003, in Review Application No.206905 of 2002 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dismissing the review petition. In the aforesaid judgments, the courts below have held, that the relationship of a landlord and tenant did not exist between respondent nos.1 and 2 and the appellants.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that:

A. The dispute pertains to the ownership of shop no.53/11 (old number) corresponding to its new number, i.e. 53/8, Nayayaganj, Kanpur Nagar. Janki Bibi (Ist) daughter of Har Dayal, was married to one Durga Prasad, son of Dina Nath. Radhey Shyam was the adopted son of Durga Prasad, whose son Shyam Sunder was married to Janki Bibi (2nd). Shyam Sunder died in the year 1914. Thus, Radhey Shyam created a life interest in the property in favour of Janki Bibi (2nd), by way of an oral Will, which further provided that she would have the right to adopt a son only with the consent of Mohan Lal, the grand son of Har Dayal. Gopi Krishan, the great grand son of Mohan Lal, claims to have been adopted by Janki Bibi (2nd), with the consent of Mohan Lal, and as regards the same, a registered document was also prepared.

B. Gopi Krishan filed a Regular Suit No.45 of 1956 against Smt. Janki Bibi (2nd) in the Court of the Civil Judge, Mohanlal Ganj in Lucknow, seeking the relief of declaration, stating that Janki Bibi was only a life estate holder in respect of the properties shown in Schedule ‘A’, and that further, she was not entitled to receive any compensation or rehabilitation grant bonds with respect to the village Nawai Perg, Jhalotar Ajgain, Tehsil Hasangunj, District Unnao. He stated all this, while claiming himself to be her adopted son.

C. Janki Bibi (2nd) contested the suit, denying the aforesaid adoption. However, the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 23.4.1958, holding that while Smt. Janki Bibi (2nd) was in fact the life estate holder of Radhey Shyam’s property, she was also entitled to receive the said compensation, in respect of the property in question herein.

D. The suit shop was under the tenancy of one Shri Badri Vishal. However, Janki Bibi (2nd) transferred the same in favour of the appellant’s mother Smt. Ram Kumari, wife of Shri Badri Vishal, vide registered sale deed dated 7.5.1974. The said tenant, Shri Badri Vishal died on 23.1.1986, and the tenancy was hence inherited by the appellants. They thus, continued to pay rent to the vendee Smt. Ram Kumari. Smt. Janki Bibi (2nd) died on 27.2.1996.

E. Respondent no.1 Gopi Krishan, filed SCC Suit No.77 of 1989 on 21.2.1989, alleging that the appellants had defaulted in making the payment of rent, and that a sum of Rs.2,768.62 was outstanding against them, as rent payable between the time period 17.2.1986 to 13.8.1988, and also damages for the period 14.8.1988 to 21.2.1989, amongst other amounts due. During the pendency of the suit, Shri Gopi Krishan respondent no.1, sold the said suit property to Smt. Vidyawati Rathaur respondent no.2, vide registered sale deed dated 3.8.1989. In view thereof, respondent no.2 got herself impleaded as plaintiff no.2 in Suit No.77 of 1989.

F. The appellants contested the suit on various grounds, claiming themselves to be the owners of the property on the basis of a sale deed. Smt. Vidyawati Rathaur respondent no.2, also filed Suit No.792 of 1995 before the Civil Court, Kanpur, seeking permanent injunction, restraining the appellants from causing any addition(s) or alteration(



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top