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

1990 Supreme(MP) 167

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
S. K. DUBEY
BAIJANTI BAI - Appellant
Versus
PRAGO - Respondents
S. A. 120 Of 1986
Decided On : 03/22/1990

Advocates Appeared:
D.K.Kothari, N.D.SINGHAL, N.K.JAIN

The Court has the discretion to hold an enquiry into the factum of validity of the assignment, as the Court is clothed with the jurisdiction to grant or refuse leave, that gives the jurisdiction to Court to hold an enquiry, if the assignment is challenged.

Headnote:

COMPROMISE - ADMISSION OF CLAIM - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY - SALE DEED - REGISTRATION - JURISDICTION - FRAUD - O. 22, R. 10, C. P. C. - O. 23, R. 3, C. P. C. - S. 28, REGISTRATION ACT - S. 52, TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT - Where a compromise is filed in a suit, the lis between the parties comes to an end, even if a third party claims rights and interest in the subject-matter. However, if the third party has a right of his own in the subject-matter of the suit, he can be left to his own resources in a regular civil suit. In a case where the purchasers pendente lite would be bound by the decree, justice requires that they should be given an opportunity to protect their rights and interest, and should not be left to take recourse to law. The Court has the discretion to hold an enquiry into the factum of validity of the assignment, as the Court is clothed with the jurisdiction to grant or refuse leave, that gives the jurisdiction to Court to hold an enquiry, if the assignment is challenged.

Fact of the Case:

In a suit for declaration and cancellation of a will, the trial Court decreed the suit. On appeal, the first appellate Court remanded the case to the trial Court, granting an opportunity to the appellant to examine the attesting witnesses of the will. Against this order, a miscellaneous appeal was preferred by the plaintiff in the High Court, wherein the order of remand was set aside and the first appellate Court was directed to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law. The first appellate Court dismissed the appeal. Before the first appellate Court, an application under O. 41, R. 27, C. P. C. , was also filed seeking an opportunity to examine the attesting witnesses of the will, but the same was also dismissed hence, the present appeal.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the purchasers pendente lite would be bound by the decree, justice requires that they should be given an opportunity to protect their rights and interest, and should not be left to take recourse to law. The Court has the discretion to hold an enquiry into the factum of validity of the assignment, as the Court is clothed with the jurisdiction to grant or refuse leave, that gives the jurisdiction to Court to hold an enquiry, if the assignment is challenged.

Issues: 1. Whether the purchasers pendente lite would be bound by the decree? 2. Whether the Court has the discretion to hold an enquiry into the factum of validity of the assignment?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Yes, the purchasers pendente lite would be bound by the decree. 2. Yes, the Court has the discretion to hold an enquiry into the factum of validity of the assignment.

Final Decision: The Court directed the first appellate Court to hold an enquiry into the factum of validity of the assignment and submit its report within four months.

S. K. DUBEY, J.

( 1 ) IN this second appeal, the two sisters who were fighting for the agricultural land situated at Survey No. 957, area 7 Bigha 1 Biswa, in village Jaura Khurd, District Morena, and a residential house situated at village Shikarpur, left by their father Sardar Singh, have filed an application (I. A. No. VI of 1980) on 17-10-1989 under O. 23, R. 3, C. P. C. , for disposing of the appeal in terms of the compromise.

( 2 ) BEFORE recording compromise and passing a judgment and decree in terms of the compromise one Rajendra Kumar Goyal filed an application (I. A. No. V/ 1989) on 20-10-1980 under O. 1, R. 10 and O. 22, R. 10 road with S. 151, C. P. C. , stating therein that during the pendency of this appeal Pragobai, the plaintiff, had entered into an agreement for sale of her one-half share in the agricultural land on 23-8-1988 for a consideration of Rs. 1,05,000/-, out of which a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was paid to her as earnest money and the balance is to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. Rajendra Kumar Goyal alleged that the two sisters have colluded to enter into a compromise to jeopardise his rights and interest; therefore, leave be granted to continue the appeal and he be ordered to be joined as a party to the appeal. The purchasers Rameshchandra Goyal, Vijayapal Singh, Dinesh Baboo Agrawal, Vinod Kumar Goyal, Mahendra Kumar and Ramkumar Bansod filed an application (I. A. No. VII/ 1989) on 3-11-1989 under O. 22, R. 10, C. P. C. , with an affidavit of Rameshchandra Goyal, and photostat copies of two registered sale deeds dated 11th October 1989 (Annexures A and B) and a photostat copy of a general power of attorney executed by respondent Pragobai in favour of Jagdish Singh Jadoo, alleging that Pragobai through Jagdish Singh Jadoo, the holder of the general power of attorney, has sold the disputed land on 11-10-1989. The sale is with the consent of Rajendra Kumar Goyal; therefore, the rights and interest in the subject-matter of the suit stand transferred and assigned, leave be granted to them to continue the appeal and they be impleaded as parties to protect their interest and rights in the suit property.

( 3 ) THE appellant Baijanti opposed those applications and filed reply with an affidavit stating that Pragobai is an illiterate lady, she never executed any general power of attorney in favour of Jagdish Singh Jadon, neither Pragobai entered into any agreement to sell the property, nor any sale deed was executed by her. No consideration was received by Pagobai. Jagdish Singh Jadon has no authority or power to sell or dispose of Pragobai's property. The documents are forged, false and personified. It was averred that the lis is already settled by way of compromise and stands terminated; hence, the dispute which involves complicated questions of fact and law, cannot be decided in this appeal, the purchasers who are strangers, are free to file a regular civil suit. Pragobai also filed the reply with affidavit on the same lines.

( 4 ) SHRI N. K. jain, learned counsel for the appellant Baijanti; Shri K. Kothari, learned counsel for respondent Pragobai, contended that both sisters have entered into a compromise, wherein Pragobai has admitted the claim of Baijanti and also the genuineness of the will executed by their father. In the circumstances no leave can be granted for allowing the strangers to continue the appeal, as after compromise the lis between the two sisters has come to an end. Besides, it was contended that the general power of attorney and the sale deeds are forged, false and personified documents; hence, if the strangers, on the basis of these documents, want to establish their rights, that can only be done by a regular civil suit, and not in this appeal. Reliance was placed on Rambharose v. Tulsiram, 1965 Jab LJ (SN) 132. To demonstrate that the sale deeds are forged, Shri Jain pointed out that the suit land is situated in Morena District, while the deeds were fraudulently executed a











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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