Back
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vivek Rusia, J.
Jagdish Chandra Gupta v. Madanlal and others
First Appeal No. 407 of 1999 (Indore): against the judgment and decree date 15.12.1999 passed by First Additional District Judge, Mandsaur; Decided on 26.11.2018.
¼2½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vkŒ 23 fuŒ 3d rFkk vkŒ 41 fuŒ 1d ¼2½ & ykxw gksuk & dsoy mu O;fDr;ksa dks ykxw gksrs gS tks okn ds lkFk&lkFk le>kSrs esa Hkh i{kdkj gksa & okn le>kSrs ds :i esa fMØh fd;k x;k & oknh le>kSrs esa i{kdkj ugha & og bl ?kks"k.kk ds fy, okn lafLFkr dj ldrk gS fd iwoZrj flfoy okn esa ikfjr fMØh 'kwU; gS vkSj ml ij vkc)dj ugha gS & bl fook|d ij fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk fu"d"kZ fd le>kSrk fMØh oknh ij vkc)dj gS & vikLr fd;k x;kA , vkb vkj 1993 ,l lh 1139] , vkb vkj 2009 ,e ih 232] ¼2009½ 6 ,l lh lh 194 rFkk , vkb vkj 2011 ,e ih 21 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 33 rFkk 38½
¼3½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vkŒ 22 fuŒ 3 rFkk 4 & fof/kd ÁfrfufËk ,oa fof/kd okfjl & ls vfHkÁsr & fof/kd Áfrfuf/k dsoy okn yM+us ds Á;kstu ds fy, gS] laifRr ds Lokeh ds :i esa ugha & fu"d"kZ fd fof/kd ÁfrfufËk oknh ds fgr dk Hkh Áfrfuf/kRo dj jgk Fkk vkSj le>kSrk djus ds fy, l{ke Fkk & xyr vfHkfyf[kr fd;k x;k & vfHk[kafMr fd;kA , vkb vkj 2008 ,l lh 2866 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 38½
¼4½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼eŒçŒ½ & /kkjk 189 & mipkj & miyC/krk & gd dh ?kks"k.kk] dCtk rFkk LFkk;h O;kns'k ds fy, okn & ;g vuqrks"k Hkh pkgk x;k fd iwoZrj flfoy okn esa ikfjr fMØh 'kwU; gS vkSj ml ij vkc)dj ugha gS & ,slk vuqrks"k dsoy flfoy U;k;ky; }kjk Ánku fd;k tk ldrk gS jktLo U;k;ky; }kjk ugha & flfoy okn pykus ;ksX; gSA ¼iSjk 39½
¼5½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼eŒçŒ½ & /kkjk 257¼Hk½] 57¼2½] 189 rFkk 250 & gd dh ?kks"k.kk] dCtk rFkk LFkk;h O;kns'k ds fy, okn & bl vk'k; dk vuqrks"k Hkh pkgk x;k fd iwoZrj okn esa ikfjr fMØh 'kwU; gS ,oa ml ij vkc)dj ugha gS & pkgk x;k vuqrks"k ?kks"k.kkRed ÁÑfr dk gS & dsoy flfoy U;k;ky; Ánku djus ds fy, l{ke gS & fupys U;k;ky; us xyr vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k fd oknh dCtk ÁkIr djus ds fy, /kkjk 189 ds v/khu jktLo U;k;ky; ds le{k tk ldrk gS & fook|d Øekad 3] 8 ,oa 9 dh lhek rd fupys U;k;ky; dh fMØh vikLr dh xbZ & vihy va'kr% LOkhdkj dh xbZA 1976 jk fu 146 % 1976 ts ,y ts 278 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ rFkk 2007 jk fu 22 ¼mPpre U;k;ky;½ voyafcrA ¼2005½ 10 ,l lh lh 124 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 39 ,oa 41½
(1) Civil P.C. 1908 -- O. 41 R. 22 -- cross-objection -- when required -- finding recorded in favour of plaintiff in respect of Will -- appeal filed by plaintiff on other grounds -- without filing any cross-objection in respect of Will -- respondents/defendants cannot be permitted to challenge the finding in respect of Will. AIR 1999 SC 3571, AIR 2000 MP 83, AIR 1982 SC 98, (2003) 9 SCC 606, (2018) 11 SCC 382 and Civil Appeal No. 9956 of 2018; decided on 25.9.2018 (SC) discussed. [Paras 20 to 26
(2) Civil P.C. 1908 -- O. 23 R. 3A and O. 41 R. 1A (2) -- applicability -- are applicable only to those persons who are party in suit as well as compromise -- suit decreed as compromise -- plaintiff not party in compromise -- he can institute suit for declaration that decree passed in prior civil Suit is void and not binding upon him -- finding of trial Court on this issue that compromise decree is binding upon plaintiff -- set aside. AIR 1993 SC 1139, AIR 2009 MP 232, (2009) 6 SCC 194 and AIR 2011 MP 21 referred to. [Paras 33 & 38
(3) Civil P.C. 1908 -- O. 22 Rr. 3 and 4 -- legal representative and legal heir -- meaning -- legal representative is only for purpose of contesting suit, not as owner of property -- finding that legal representative was representing the interest of plaintiff also and was competent to enter into compromise -- wrongly recorded -- quashed. AIR 2008 SC 2866 referred to. [Para 38
(4) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S. 189 -- remedy -- availability -- civil suit for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction -- relief also sought that decree passed in earlier civil suit is void and not binding on him -- such relief can only be granted by civil Court and not by Revenue Court -- civil suit is maintainable. [Para 39
(5) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- Ss. 257(x), 57 (2), 189 and 250 -- civil suit for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction -- relief to this effect also sought that decree passed in earlier suit is void and not binding on him -- relief sought is in declaratory nature -- only civil Court is competent for granting the same -- Court below wrongly held that plaintiff can approach revenue Court under section 189 for obtaining possession -- decree of Court below set aside to the extent of issue No. 3, 8 and 9 -- appeal partly allowed. 1976 RN 146 = 1976 JLJ 278 (FB) and 2007 RN 22 (HC) relied on. (2005) 10 SCC 124 followed. [Paras 39 & 41
1. The appellant (hereinafter referred as "plaintiff") has filed the present appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15.12.1999 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Mandsaur by which the civil suit has been dismissed.
Facts of the case in short are as under:
2. The plaintiff filed the suit for the reliefs of declaration, permanent injunction, possession and damages for the property bearing Survey No. 790 (Area 0.031 are) (Old No. 1232 of 2002), situated at Mandsaur. The boundaries of the suit property described in the plaint are as under:-
"North
Remaining land of Survey No. 790.
South
Kailash Marg Bus Stand.
East
Survey No. 791.
West
Road from Bust Stand to Gandhi Square.
Measurement of the land: length from east to west - 50 feet, width from north to south 50 feet (50 x 50 square feet)."
(Hereinafter referred as the "suit property")
3. According to pleadings in the plaint, the "suit property" as well as nearby land was initially owned by Late Ramteerath and his ancestors. That "suit property" 50x50 sq.ft. and nearby lands owned by the ancestors of Late Ramteerath namely Hukumchand Onkar, Smt. Judab Bai and Ganga Bai were given on lease to ancestors of defendant Nos. 6 to 18 namely Girdharilal on 10.9.1901. Late Ramteerath initiated proceedings for resumption of the aforesaid land under section 189 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code' 1959 (hereinafter referred as "MPLR Code") before the Sub Divisional Officer, Mandsaur which was registered as Case No. 2/60xA/45. In the said case, the order of resumption dated 20.2.1968 was passed by the Revenue Commissioner in favour of Late Ramteerath in Appeal No. 109/66-67 which had been upheld by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 26.8.1968 in Case No. 91/3/68. In compliance of the aforesaid order, improvement and construction cost was deposited in the revenue Court by Late Ramteerath.
4. In order to protect their possession over the suit land and others lands Mandanlal, Maniklal, Laxmi Narayan and Smt. Badam Bai filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction against Late Ramteerath and 4 others which was registered as Suit No. 739-A/1996. Initially, the temporary injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiffs therein on 21.10.1976 which remained valid upto 14.5.1997. During pendency of the said suit, Late Ramteerath expired and the name of defendant No. 5 Mohd. Shafi was brought on record as his legal representative by virtue of Will dated 4.5.1977 executed by him. According to the plaintiff, defendant No. 5 colluded with defendants No. 1 to 4 and got disposed of the suit by way of compromise. He had no authority or right to enter into the compromise in respect of the suit land which was granted to him by Late Late Ramteerath by way of Will dated 4.5.1977. By judgement dated 14.5.1997, the suit has been decreed in favour of defendants No. 1 to 4 on the basis of compromise which came to the knowledge of plaintiff on 2.6.1997, hence, he filed the present suit on 23.6.1997. According to the plaintiff, by virtue of Will dated 4.5.1977, he had become the owner of the suit property. The defendant No. 5 was only made a legal representative to pursue the suit, who had no right to enter into a compromise against the interest of plaintiff. The suit was disposed of without following the provisions under Order 23 rule 3 (b) of the CPC, hence, the decree 14.5.1997 is liable to be declared void. The plaintiff has also claimed damages @ Rs. 16,500/- per year and also claimed reliefs of possession and permanent injunction.
5. After notice, the defendants No. 1 to 4 filed the written statement by submitting that they are in possession from the period of their ancestors viz Roopchand and defendants No. 6, 7 and Mangilal as Upkrushak i.e. the year 1949. Late Ramteerath did not initiate any proceedings agai
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
