2011 (2) UAD 462
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma
Civil Appeal No. 4912-4913 of 2011
RAMESHWARI DEVI & ORS. – Appellants
Versus
NIRMALA DEVI & ORS. – Respondents
Decided on : 04.07.2011
nhokuh okn esa gksus okyk foyEc & fo|eku O;oLFkk ij fu;a=.k ;k rks l[rh ls cnyk tk ldrk gS ;k ¼fodflr½ lq/kkjk tk ldrk gS mfYyf[kr rF;ksa ij fopkj fd;k tkuk visf{kr gS & (A) i{kdkjksa ds Dyse dh vk/kkjf'kyk okni= gksrk gS & nhokuh okn cgqr gn rd nLrkostksa ij vk/kkfjr gksrk gS & fopkj.k U;k;k/kh'k dk ;g drZO; gS vkSj nkf;Ro gS fd og okn i= dh Hkyh Hkk¡fr tkap ij[k vkSj izekf.kr djs vkSj mlds lkFk yxh nLrkostksa dks tks fd i{kdkjksa }kjk nk;j dh xbZ Fkh dh Hkh tkap iM+rky djs & nhokuh ifjokj nk;j fd;s tkus ds rqjUr ckn ;g lc fd;k tkuk visf{kr gS & (B) U;k;ky; dks nLrkostksa ds nk;js vkSj iz'uksÙkjh ds is'k djus ij tk¡p dh izfØ;k 'kh?kzkfr'kh?kz nhokuh lafgrk ds mn~ns';ksa ds vuqlkj viukbZ tkuh pkfg, & ;fn ;g izfØ;k lko/kkuh iwoZ dh tkrh gS rks blls okn esa mRié fojks/kkHkklksa dks bafxr fd;k tk ldsxk vkSj ekeys dh lR;rk dks tkuus esa U;k;ky; dks enn feysxh vkSj Bksl U;k; djus esa lqxerk jgsxh & (C) okLrfod vFkok mfpr gtkZuk vk;n djus vFkok vfHk;kstu dk vkns'k ikfjr djus ls Hkh dkQh gn rd i{kdkjksa }kjk >wBk ifjokn vFkok QthZ vkSj dwVdj.k okys nLrkost nk;j fd;s tkus dh vknr ij fu;a=.k fd;k tk ldsxk & Hkkjh gtkZuk yxkus ls Hkh vuko';d LFkxuksa ij fu;a=.k gks ldsxk & mfpr ekeyksa esa U;k;ky; }kjk vfHk;kstu ds vkns'k ikfjr dj ldrh gS vU;Fkk U;kf;d izfØ;k dh LoPNrk vkSj ifo=rk dks dk;e j[kuk laHko ugha gks ldrk & (D) U;k;ky; dks e/;orhZ vuqrks"k LohÑr fd;s tkus esa okLrfod vkSj jpukRed n`f"Vdks.k viukuk pkfg, & U;k;ky; dks cgqr /;ku iwoZd mu rF;ksa dks viuh n`f"V esa j[kuk pkfg, ftu ds vk/kkj ij e/; dkyhu vuqrks"k@ykHk iznku fd;k x;k gS & (E) U;k;ky; dks LFkxu vFkok LFkxu vkns'k ikfjr djus esa vR;Ur lko/kku jguk pkfg, & lk/kkj.kr;k oknh vFkok izfroknh dks de vof/k dk uksfVl fn;k tkuk pkfg, vkSj lacaf/kr i{kdkjksa dks lqus tkus ds mijkUr gh mfpr vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tkuk pkfg, & (F) i{kdkjksa esa ftlus ,d i{kh; varfje LFkxu vkns'k >wBh nyhyksa vkSj QthZ nLrkostksa ds vk/kkj ij izkIr fd;k Fkk mls mi;qDr n.M fn;k tkuk pkfg, & fdlh dks Hkh U;k;ky; dh izfØ;k dk nq#i;ksx fd;s tkus dh btktr ugha nh tkuh pkfg, & (G) iqujkLFkkiu dk fl)kUr] Bksl U;k; djus gsrq jpukRed :i ls iw.kZ :is.k ykxw fd;k tkuk pkfg, & (H) izR;sd okn fdlh O;fDr vFkok fdlh okf.kfT;d leL;k ls mRié gksrk gS vkSj U;k;ky; dks dkuwuh nk;js ds vUrxZr vkSj dkuwu vkSj U;k; ds izfrikfnr fl)kUrksa ds vuqlkj gy djus dk xaHkhj iz;kl djuk pkfg, & (I) ;fn fdlh dsl esa ,d i{kh; LFkxu LohÑr fd;k tkrk gS rks dfFkr izkFkZuk i= tks LFkxu dh LohÑfr ds okLrs nk;j fd;k x;k gS] nksuksa i{kksa dks lqudj tgk¡ rd laHko gks tYnh ls izkFkfedrk ds vk/kkj ij xq.k nks"k ds vuqlkj fuLrkfjr fd;k tkuk pkfg, rFkk vuko';d dsl ds LFkxu ls cpuk pkfg, & (J) ifjokn i= ds nk;js ds le;] fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks ,d iw.kZ le; lkfj.kh dks rS;kj dj ysuk pkfg, vkSj lHkh Lrjksa ds okLrs frfFk fu;r dj nsuh pkfg,] izfrokn i= nk;j djus ls ysdj fu.kZ; nsus rd dh frfFk;k¡ fu;r djds U;k;ky; dks dM+kbZ ls mDr le; lkfj.kh vkSj frfFk;ksa dk] tgk¡ rd laHko gks] ikyu djuk pkfg, & ;fn dksbZ var%dkyhu izkFkZuk i= nk;j fd;k tkrk gS rks mls mu fu;r frfFk;ksa ds e/; esa gh fuLrkfjr dj nsuk pkfg, ftlls mDr okn esa fu;r frfFk esa dksbZ ck/kk u iM+ ldsA ¼izLrj 52½
Dalveer Bhandari, J. — Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 01.09.2010 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Petition (Main) No. 1084 of 2010 and the order dated 25.10.2010 passed in Review Petition No. 429 of 2010 in Civil Miscellaneous Petition (Main) No. 1084 of 2010 by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi.
3. The apparent discernible question which requires adjudication in this case seems to be a trivial, insignificant and small one regarding imposition of costs, but in fact, these appeals have raised several important questions of law of great importance which we propose to deal in this judgment. Looking to the importance of the matter we requested Dr. Arun Mohan, a distinguished senior advocate to assist this court as an Amicus Curiae.
4. This is a classic example which abundantly depicts the picture of how the civil litigation moves in our courts and how unscrupulous litigants (appellants in this case) can till eternity harass the respondents and their children by abusing the judicial system.
5. The basic facts which are necessary to dispose of these appeals are recapitulated as under :-
6. In the year 1952, almost about half a century ago, the government allotted a residential house bearing nos. 61-62, I-Block, Lajpat Nagar-I, measuring 200 yards to Ram Parshad. The Lease Deed was executed in his favour on 31.10.1964.
7. On humane considerations of shelter, Ram Parshad allowed his three younger brothers – Madan Lal, Krishan Gopal and Manohar Lal to reside with him in the house. On 16.11.1977, these three, younger brothers filed a Civil Suit No. 993 of 1977 in the High Court of Delhi claiming that this Lajpat Nagar property belonged to a joint Hindu Family and sought partition of the property on that basis.
8. The suit was dismissed by a judgment dated 18.01.1982 by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi. The appellants (younger brothers) of Ram Parshad, aggrieved by the said judgment preferred a Regular First Appeal (Original Side) 4 of 1982 which was admitted to hearing on 09.03.1982. During the pendency of the appeal, Ram Parshad on 15.01.1992 filed a suit against his three younger brothers for mandatory injunction to remove them and for recovery of mesne profits. In 1984 Ram Parshad sold western half (No. 61) to an outsider. That matter is no longer in dispute.
9. The first appeal filed by the other three younger brothers of Ram Parshad against Ram Parshad was dismissed on 09.11.2000. Against the concurrent findings of both of the judgments, the appellants filed a Special Leave Petition No. 3740 of 2001 in this court which was also dismissed on 16.03.2001.
10. In the suit filed by Ram Parshad (one of the respondents) (now deceased) against the appellants in these appeals the following issues were framed:
1. Whether the suit is liable to be stayed under Section 10 CPC as alleged in para no. 1 of Preliminary Objection?
2. Whether defendants are licencees in the suit premises and if so whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the same from them?
3. Whether suit of plaintiff is time barred?
4. Whether suit has been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction?
5. Whether the suit property is joint family property of parties?
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits for use and occupation of the suit property by the defendants and if so at what rate and for which period?
7. Whether defendants have become the owner of three-fourth share of the suit property by adverse possession?
8. Relief.
And fixed the matter for evidence on 22.11.2004.
11. The defendants in the suit contended that inasmuch as Regular First Appeal (Original Side) 4 of 1982 was still pending, therefore, Ram Parshad’s suit be stayed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accepting the contention, on 20.07.1992, the 1992 suit was ordered to be stayed.
12. The Regular First Appeal was dismissed on 9.11.2000 and the Special leave petition ag
2. Mahila Vinod Kumari v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008) 8 SCC 34.
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.