ISABELLAJOHNSON Vs. M A SUSAI
LAWS(SC)-1990-10-47
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ANDHRA PRADESH)
Decided on October 09,1990

ISABELLAJOHNSON Appellant
VERSUS
M.A.SUSAI Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

RAJINDER PARSHAD JAIN VS. BAL GOPL DAS [LAWS(DLH)-1998-11-53] [REFERRED]
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA VS. PURSHOTTAM DAS MALHOTRA [LAWS(DLH)-1999-12-75] [REFERRED]
S P DUBEY VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2001-12-28] [REFERRED TO]
PRIKSHIT RAJ MEHRA VS. BIMLA DEVI [LAWS(DLH)-2011-3-17] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL QAYYUM; RAFAQAT ALI VS. IIND ADDL DISTT JUDGE MEERUT [LAWS(ALL)-2006-12-40] [REFERRED TO]
SHAFIULLAH VS. SPECIAL JUDGE E G ACT [LAWS(ALL)-2008-1-118] [REFERRED TO]
VADRANAM RAMACHANDRAYYA VS. SHAIK GOUSIYA BEGUM [LAWS(APH)-1997-8-58] [REFERRED TO]
AVISA VIJAYA BABU VS. PADELLA VENKATA SUBBA REDDY [LAWS(APH)-1998-3-96] [REFERRED TO]
NAMMI GANGA RAJU VS. A RAMAKRISHNA [LAWS(APH)-2002-12-107] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD VAJAHATH HUSSAIN VS. SPECIL COURT UNDER AP LAND GRABBING PROHIBITION ACT [LAWS(APH)-2007-4-92] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMI VS. SEETHAMMA [LAWS(KAR)-1994-4-21] [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMI DEBNATH VS. REND AICH [LAWS(CAL)-1993-5-34] [REFERRED TO]
ADITYA NARAYAN VS. CHANDU SINGH [LAWS(MPH)-2001-8-6] [REFERRED TO]
LOHIA MANDILIA VS. C E S C LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2003-1-7] [REFERRED TO]
M K VENUGOPAL VS. AWATHAMA [LAWS(KAR)-2004-8-51] [REFERRED TO]
SAMSER ALI MONDAL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2006-6-44] [REFERRED TO]
HAJIRA UMMA VS. RAZAK [LAWS(KER)-1991-10-22] [REFERRED TO]
B R VASUDEVAMURTHY VS. MINISTER FOR REVENUE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2006-12-1] [REFERRED TO]
NAFEESU VS. HAJRABI [LAWS(KER)-1992-3-12] [REFERRED TO]
KUNJUNNI JANARDHANAN VS. KUNJUNNI BHASKARAN [LAWS(KER)-2001-3-35] [REFERRED]
BHEL THUPPURAVU THOZHILALAR SANGAM BHEL LTD VS. MGMT OF BHEL [LAWS(MAD)-1999-12-61] [REFERRED TO]
GANGA COELHO VS. NEENA PINTO [LAWS(BOM)-1996-9-23] [REFERRED TO]
KERALA HIGH COURT ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION VS. BABBALAN [LAWS(KER)-2010-2-1] [REFERRED TO]
SHRIMAD RAGHAVENDRAN THIRTHA SWAMI SANYASI VS. SHRIMAD SUDHEENDRA THEERTHA SWAMI [LAWS(KER)-2011-12-25] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. ASSOCIATION OF UNIFIED TELECOM SERVICE PROVIDERS OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2011-10-17] [REFERRED TO]
HOPE PLANTATIONS VS. LTD [LAWS(SC)-1998-11-21] [REFERRED TO]
PURI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(DLH)-1997-7-66] [REFERRED]
HUKUM CHAND VS. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(DLH)-2008-7-120] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH MADAN VS. RAJASTHAN FINANCIAL [LAWS(DLH)-2009-1-8] [REFERRED TO]
P D TANDON VS. MILITARY ESTATE OFFICER [LAWS(ALL)-2005-5-18] [REFERRED TO]
AMI CHAND VS. KRISHNI DEVI [LAWS(HPH)-1997-3-3] [REFERRED TO]
III ACES HYDERABAD VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-1994-9-3] [REFERRED TO]
JAGANNATHA SWAMY VARU VS. V VENUGOPALANAIDU [LAWS(APH)-1995-7-73] [REFERRED TO]
RAMA KRISHNA RAO P VS. P NARASIMHA RAO [LAWS(APH)-1997-3-123] [RELIED ON]
STATE OF ANDHRA PPADESH VS. PALTATI SHARAVAN KUMAR [LAWS(APH)-2003-10-48] [REFERRED TO]
NARRA MADHAVA RAO VS. B SADASIVA RAO [LAWS(APH)-2009-7-37] [REFERRED TO]
STEPHEN COURT LIMITED VS. OFFICIAL TRUSTEES OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1999-12-1] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. CALCUTTA MINT EMPLOYEES UNION [LAWS(CAL)-2004-10-24] [REFERRED TO]
HAMEEDA BEGUM VS. CHAMPA BAI JAIN [LAWS(MPH)-2009-2-28] [REFERRED TO]
CHELLAMMA PILLAI VS. RAJAPPAN NADAR [LAWS(KER)-1998-5-22] [REFERRED TO]
OWNERS AND PARTIES INTERESTED IN THE VESSELS M V EUGINE VS. V K UDYOG LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2011-9-168] [REFEREED TO]
INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED VS. SHARAD KHANNA [LAWS(BOM)-1992-7-39] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER H R AND C E A DEPARTMENT MADRAS VS. ARULMIGHU ARASADI KARPAGA VINAYAGAR TEMPLE [LAWS(MAD)-2003-7-88] [REFERRED TO...... (PARA 30)]
MOHMED YUNUSUDDIN SHAIKH VS. MANGANESE ORE INDIA LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2008-1-21] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KRISNLAL MARWAH VS. GOVIND H ROHIRA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-6-71] [REFERRED TO]
ANKUSH R NAIK VS. SUJATA SANZGIRY [LAWS(BOM)-2008-7-17] [REFERRED TO]
SAVITRIBAI A SALVI VS. SUMAN NAVGIRE [LAWS(BOM)-2009-6-117] [REFERRED TO]
NISHIKANT SUKERKAR VS. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2003-7-176] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK KUMAR VERMA VS. RAM SWAMP SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-1991-4-19] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. DISTRICT JUDGE CHANDIGARH [LAWS(P&H)-2005-9-16] [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB WKF BOARD VS. SATISH KUMAR [LAWS(P&H)-2007-2-6] [REFERRED TO]
FAKIR MOHAMMED VS. AJAJ ALI [LAWS(RAJ)-2002-7-87] [REFERRED TO]
PTC INDIA LIMITED VS. JAIPRAKASH POWER VENTURES LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2012-5-660] [REFERRED TO]
GUAJRAT AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD VS. SARDAR SAROVAR NARMADA NIGAM LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2012-3-110] [REFERRED TO]
DEVESH KUMAR VS. RAM DEVI [LAWS(ALL)-2012-1-271] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHASH CHAND JAIN VS. PUNJAB AND SIND BANK [LAWS(BOM)-1998-2-142] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ NATH DUBEY VS. DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION [LAWS(ALL)-2013-11-3] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. MAJOR S.P. SHARMA [LAWS(SC)-2014-3-12] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(SC)-2014-5-12] [REFERRED TO]
BUHARI SONS PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2014-6-42] [REFERRED TO]
VANEET GANDOTRA VS. VINOD GANDOTRA [LAWS(J&K)-2013-12-52] [REFERRED TO]
MOIDEEN PILLAI VS. T. K. KADER ROWTHER [LAWS(KER)-1991-10-60] [REFERRED TO]
JANARDAN TEWARI VS. DY. D.C./A.D.M. (F & R) [LAWS(ALL)-2014-8-157] [REFERRED TO]
BHAJAN LAL VS. DISTRICT JUDGE, MATHURA [LAWS(ALL)-1997-5-214] [REFERRED TO]
NAKUL CHANDRA MISTRY VS. RADHEY SHYAM MISTRY [LAWS(CAL)-2014-8-81] [REFERRED TO]
KINGFISHER AIRLINES LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2014-12-85] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL RASTOGI S/O SURESH CHAND RASTOGI VS. JAG PAR SECURITIES LTD [LAWS(NCD)-2015-1-45] [REFERRED TO]
HARBHAJAN SINGH VS. PARDUMAN SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-2-4] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL)-2 AND ORS. VS. SHANKARLAL AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2014-12-122] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH BHATIA VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [LAWS(CE)-2000-12-196] [REFERRED TO]
AMI PIGMENTS PVT LTD VS. STATE OF GUJARAT THR SECRETARY [LAWS(GJH)-2010-2-366] [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL WORKERS UNION VS. RELIANCE AND OTHER MILLS WORKER UNION [LAWS(GJH)-2012-10-341] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ NATH DUBEY VS. DY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND 12 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2014-1-493] [REFERRED TO]
S.K. SEHGAL AND ORS. VS. DELHI ADMINISTRATION AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-3-16] [REFERRED TO]
SATYENDRA KUMAR & ORS. VS. RAJ NATH DUBEY & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2016-5-15] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPA JITENDRA JOSHI VS. APURVA VASHISHTH THAKAR [LAWS(GJH)-2015-6-124] [REFERRED TO]
ALCON CEMENT COMPANY LTD. VS. STATE OF GOA [LAWS(BOM)-2001-4-98] [REFERRED TO]
KOMALAKUMAR VS. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS [LAWS(KER)-2015-12-256] [REFERRED]
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD VS. K.L.KUMAR [LAWS(MAD)-2017-8-30] [REFERRED TO]
SHAHIDA KHATOON & ORS VS. QAIYUM ALI & ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2018-9-364] [REFERRED TO]
SANTHOSH P.K. VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(KER)-2018-3-613] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. PENIEL CASHEW COMPANY & ORS. VS. M/S. AHCOM SARL [LAWS(KER)-2018-6-808] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD KUMAR VS. THAKUR MURLI MANOHARJI [LAWS(ALL)-2018-11-113] [REFERRED TO]
LOKMAT MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. VIJAY S/O KRUSHANRAO PAWAR [LAWS(BOM)-2018-11-201] [REFERRED TO]
SANTHA VS. STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE EXCISE INSPECTOR [LAWS(KER)-2018-3-817] [REFERRED TO]
PENIEL CASHEW COMPANY & ORS. VS. AHCOM SARL [LAWS(KER)-2018-6-863] [REFERRED TO]
S.V.P. POOKOYA AND OTHERS VS. LAKSHADWEEP STATE WAKF BOARD KAVARATTI AND OTHERS [LAWS(KER)-2018-10-306] [REFERRED TO]
ROHIT MADAN VS. NARINDER KUMAR [LAWS(HPH)-2019-9-191] [REFERRED TO]
RAJA VELLAIYAN VS. SUNDARA VINAYAGAR [LAWS(MAD)-2020-2-273] [REFERRED TO]
MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LIMITED VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-3-60] [REFERRED TO]
HERO ELECTRIC VEHICLES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. LECTRO E-MOBILITY PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2021-3-39] [REFERRED TO]
M/S BADAM BALAKRISHNA HOTEL PVT. LTD VS. MUMTAZ YARUD DOWLA WAKF [LAWS(TLNG)-2021-11-101] [REFERRED TO]
GAYATRI PROJECT LIMITED VS. MADHYA PRADESH ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(MPH)-2022-1-87] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Kania, J. - (1.)This is an appeal by special leave from the decision of a learned single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Second Appeal No. 526 of 1977.
(2.)As we are, with respect, in agreement with the conclusions arrived at by the learned single Judge of the High Court, we propose to set out only the bare facts essential for the purposes of our judgment.
(3.)The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondent was the defendant in Suit O.S. No. 789 of 1973 filed in the Court of the Third Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The appellant prayed for a decree for recovery of possession of the suit premises from the respondent and for mesne profits till the delivery of possession of the premises. The case of the appellant was that she was the owner of the suit premises and the respondent was in the occupation of the said premises on payment of Rs. 301- per month. The respondent had been irregular in the payment of the said rent and had been a source of perpetual nuisance. It was on this ground that the eviction of the premises was sought by the appellant. In his written statement the respondent took a preliminary objection that the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the suit fell within the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller at Hyderabad. Two petitions had earlier been filed by the appellant before the Rent Controller for eviction of the respondent and the Rent Controller had rejected the same on the ground that the purported tenancy of the respondent was hit by S. 3 of the A.P. Rent Control Act and hence, the eviction suit was not entertainable by the Court of Rent Controller. This conclusion was arrived at on a plea to the said effect taken by the respondent. In the Court of learned Third Assistant Judge of the City Civil Court at Hyderabad the respondent took up the plea that the suit fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller and hence the City Civil Court ' had up jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Certain pleas were made regarding amendments in the law with which we are not concerned in this appeal. What is material to'note for our purposes is that the learned Assistant Judge took the view that as the respondent had, before the Rent Controller, taken up the plea that it was not the Rent Controller but the City Civil Court which had the jurisdiction to entertain the eviction petition against him, and the said plea was upheld, it was not open to the respondent to take up the inconsistent plea before the City Civil Court that it was the Rent Controller and not the City Civil Court which had jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings. It was held that the respondent could not be allowed to approbate and reprobate and that he was estopped by way of pleading to take up an inconsistent plea regarding jurisdiction.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.