ROOPLAL Vs. SANGRAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a special appeal directed against the order of P.N. Shinghal J., in S.B. Civil Regular Second Appeal No. 332 of 1963 dated 6 -8 -1969 for the return of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) THE suit out of which this appeal arises, was filed by the appellant Rooplal, as plaintiff for declaration that the Sale -Deed dated 18 -8 -1951 (exhibit 2) executed by his father Bhooralal of certain lands which constituted joint family property, was not made for legal necessity or for the payment of any antecedent debt and was, therefore, not binding on him; and for possession thereof. The finding of the courts below that the impugned sale was not for legal necessity or for payment of any antecedent debt was not challenged before the learned Single Judge. That being so, the learned Single Judge held the sale to be void ab initio. He was of the view that the substantive relief which the plaintiff claimed was, in fact, for delivery of possession of the land and, therefore, claim in suit fell within the purview of Section 187 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and, therefore, the suit was not triable by a civil court. Upon that view, the learned Single Judge made an order for return of the plaint to the proper court under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code.

(3.) THERE was a sharp conflict of opinion between different High Courts as to the meaning of the word 'judgment', as used in Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Their Lordships of the Privy Council in Sevak Jeranchod Bhogi Lal and Ors. v. The Dakore Temple Committee and Ors. A.I.R. 1925 P.C. 155 held that the word 'judgment' in a civil case means a decree. The Supreme Court in Asrumati Devi v. Rupendra Deb : [1953]4SCR1159 laid down the two tests for finding out whether an adjudication was a judgment or not namely: