A single appeal cannot contest both a suit and counterclaim; separate appeals are required to challenge each decree’s validity.

ORDER :

G. S. Ahluwalia, J.

This Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 20.02.2008 passed IV Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Regular Civil Appeal No. 49A/2006 by which appeal filed by appellant has been dismissed.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal, in short, are that plaintiff filed civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction thereby challenging the registered partition deed (Ex.P/1) on the ground that father of appellant was not in a fit state of mind to participate in the partition proceedings. A counter claim was filed by defendant No.6/ Smt. Aruna Govind Dongre and it was prayed that possession of property marked in blue lines in a map attached to the counter claim be given to the respondent No.6.

3. Trial Court after framing the issue and recording evidence dismissed the suit filed by appellant and decreed the counter claim.

4. Being aggrieved by judgment and decree passed by Trial Court, appellant preferred a civil appeal i.e. under Section 96 of CPC and by impugned judgment and decree, appeal filed by appellant was dismissed.

5. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by Court below, it is submitted by counsel for appellant that both the Courts below have failed to see that Madhavrao Dongre was not in a fit state of mind to participate in the partition proceedings, therefore, registered partition deed (Ex.P/1) is null and void. It is further submitted that Trial Court had committed material illegality by decreeing the counter claim. However, it was fairly conceded that no separate appeal against judgment and decree passed in the counter claim was filed by appellant.

6. Heard the learned counsel for appellant.

7 . It is fairly conceded by counsel for appellant that no medical prescription was filed by appellant to show that his father Madhovrao Dongre was suffering from any physical and mental ailment. Further partition deed (Ex.P/1) is a registered document. Therefore, a presumption can be drawn that sub-registrar must have performed his duties in accordance with law and must have verified from the executants about the contents of partition deed. As the appellant has miserably failed to prove that Madhavrao Dongre was suffering from any mental and physical ailment, therefore, Courts below did not commit any mistake by recording the concurrent findings of fact that partition deed (Ex.P/1) was executed by Madhavrao Dongre in full senses and he was not suffering from any physical and mental ailment.

8. So far as the question of decree passed in the counter claim is concerned, it is contended by counsel for appellant that no separate decree was passed by Trial Court in the counter claim.

9 . Now the only question for consideration is as to whether a composite and single appeal can be filed against judgment and decree passed in the civil suit as well as judgment and decree passed in the counter claim or not? Counter claim is always treated to be separate suit and therefore, counter claim might have been decided by common judgment and decree passed by Trial Court, but a separate appeal is required to be filed against the judgment and decree passed in the counter claim.

10. This Court in the case of Baboolal Vs. Kishanlal And Others decided on 18.06.2025 in Second Appeal No.401/2006 has held as under:-

"11. The Supreme Court in the case of Rajni Rani And Another Vs. Khairati Lal And Others reported in (2015) 2 SCC 682 has held as under:

12. From the aforesaid enunciation of law, it is manifest that when there is a conclusive determination of rights of parties upon adjudication, the said decision in certain circumstances can have the status of a decree. In the instant case, as has been narrated earlie