Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.
Kamini Sood - Appellant.
Versus
Sapna Puri & another - Respondents
RSA No.219 of 2021
Decided on : 15-12-2023
Civil Procedure Code - Civil Suit - Order 7 Rule 5 CPC, Specific Relief Act - [Vivek Singh Thakur, J] - [Civil Procedure Code] - [Order 7 Rule 5 CPC, Specific Relief Act] - The court discussed the provisions of Order 7 Rule 5 CPC and Specific Relief Act in the context of impleading a party and granting relief beyond the relief sought by the party. The court held that the relief granted by the lower courts was in consonance with the pleadings and evidence, and there was no perversity in the judgments and decrees.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking possession of a flat and damages against defendant No.1. Defendant No.2, the wife of defendant No.1, claimed her right to stay in the premises through her husband and was impleaded as a party. The Trial Court allowed the suit for possession against defendant No.1. The plaintiff appealed for modification of the judgment and decree to pass a decree of possession against both defendants and for granting use and occupation charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the relief granted by the lower courts was in consonance with the pleadings and evidence. It held that there was no perversity in the judgments and decrees, and the District Judge did not commit any illegality or irregularity by modifying the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge.
Issues: The issues included whether the relief granted by the lower courts was beyond the scope of pleadings and evidence, and whether the courts misapplied the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code and Specific Relief Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the relief granted by the lower courts was in consonance with the pleadings and evidence, and there was no perversity in the judgments and decrees. It emphasized that the modification made by the District Judge was clarificatory in nature and not beyond the scope of pleadings and evidence.
Final Decision: The court rejected the substantial questions of law raised by the appellant and dismissed the appeal, stating that it was devoid of merit.
JUDGMENT :
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
Parties in present appeal, for convenience, shall be referred according to their status in the Civil Suit. As such, appellant shall be referred as defendant No.2, respondent No.1 shall be referred as plaintiff and respondent No.2 shall be referred as defendant No.1.
2. Present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 28.8.2021, passed by Additional District Judge (I), Shimla, in Civil Appeal No.37-S/13 of 2018, titled as Sapna Puri v. Vijay Sood & another, whereby judgment and decree dated 7.7.2018, passed by Civil Judge, Court No.4, Shimla, in Civil Suit RBT No.72-I of 2015/10, titled as Sapna Puri versus Vijay Sood and another, has been modified and instead of passing a decree for possession against defendant No.1, decree of possession has been passed against both defendants, and plaintiff has also been held entitled for use and occupation charges at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month with effect from 29.7.2020 till the suit property is vacated and possession is handed over to the plaintiff, making both defendants liable jointly and severally.
3. Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:
2. Whether the Ld. Court below while modifying the judgment and decree of the Ld. Trial Court has misconstrued and misapplied the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code especially Order 7 Rule 5 CPC, Specific Relief Act, and failed to appreciate the material placed on record in the proper perspective while recording its findings, resulting in the wrongful decreeing of the suit against the appellant/ defendant?
3. Whether the Ld. First Appellate Court while decreeing the suit against the present appellant/defendant acted contrary to the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and provisions of Order 7 Rule 5 CPC, by granting relief against the present appellant/ defendant, notwithstanding the fact that no such relief had been sought in the plaint?
4. Whether a Civil Court while exercising powers under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code and Specific Relief Act is authorised to grant relief beyond the relief sought by the party before it?
5. Whether the Ld. First Appellate Court has mis- directed itself by allowing use and occupation charges in favour of the respondent/plaintiff when only damages had been sought in the suit and no supporting evidence to justify the awarding of damages had been adduced by the respondent/ plaintiff?
6. Whether the Ld. Court below has misread and misconstrued the entire pleadings, evidences oral as well as documentary, resulting in the wrongful findings against the present appellant?
4. On 6.10.2010, plaintiff filed a suit against defendant No.1 Vijay Sood, seeking the following relief:
b) A decree for damages be passed against the defendant directing him to pay sum of Rs 10,000/- P.M w.e.f 29-7-2010 till delivering the possession of three room flat on account of use and occupation charges. Defendant be further directed to pay cost of suit, lawyers fee and notice fees.
c). A decree be passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant for recovery of sum of Rs 100000/- on account of readymade garments which was taken by defendant illegally in his possession.
Any other suitable decree in addition or in the alternative, deem fit and proper be also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.”
5.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the relief granted by the lower courts must be in consonance with the pleadings and evidence, and any modification made should be clarificator....
The judgment emphasized the requirement for the court to adjudicate all questions of right, title, and possession in the property claimed by the objector under Order XXI Rule 97, and clarified the di....
A consent decree cannot be dismissed on procedural grounds, and adverse possession claims require proof of hostile possession, which was not established.
A co-owner can maintain a suit for possession against a tenant without joining other co-owners, affirming that non-joinder does not render the suit bad in law.
Possession must be adverse and hostile to establish adverse possession; mere long-term possession does not equate to legal title without evidentiary support.
The decision by a criminal court does not bind the civil court but would be relevant while dealing with the suit for possession or eviction that may be filed against the daughter-in-law.
Possessory rights can be protected until evicted by the true owner, and earlier unexecuted decrees do not operate as res judicata.
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
