RAJNI RANI Vs. KHAIRATI LAL
LAWS(SC)-2014-10-15
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
October 14,2014
RAJNI RANI
Appellant
VERSUS
KHAIRATI LAL
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
JETHANAND AND SONS VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]RAM CHAND SPG AND WVG MILLS VS. BIJLI COTTO : MILLS P LTD [REFERRED TO]
V M ABDUL RAHMAN VS. D K CASSIM AND SONS [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
KULDEEP SINGH VS. HARBANS LAL [LAWS(HPH)-2023-9-62] [REFERRED TO]BHOGIRAM AND ORS. VS. SHER SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2019-8-178] [REFERRED TO]
HARI SINGH VS. JAGDISH CHAND AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2018-5-241] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHAND VS. OM RAJ [LAWS(HPH)-2022-5-4] [REFERRED TO]
SAMAY SINGH VS. MONA YADAV AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2019-4-43] [REFERRED TO]
C GOPALASWAMY VS. M RAMASAMY [LAWS(MAD)-2018-8-486] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH KUMAR VS. MAHAVIR PRASAD [LAWS(CHH)-2018-9-6] [REFERRED TO]
ASF BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED VS. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2024-7-39] [REFERRED TO]
CHET RAM AND OTHERS VS. BALDEV SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2016-11-50] [REFERRED TO]
ANARKALI VS. SIYAWATI [LAWS(ALL)-2024-5-35] [REFERRED TO]
ANTONIETA B FERNANDES VS. ANA PAULA DO REGO E MENDES [LAWS(BOM)-2018-7-281] [REFERRED TO]
KUSHESHWAR PURBEY VS. SHRI SHRI 108 RAM JANAKI JEE S. [LAWS(PAT)-2017-8-51] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. IQBAL BANU VS. RAMESH AND OTHERS [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-9-15] [REFERRED TO]
OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD VS. AFCONS GUNANUSA JV [LAWS(SC)-2022-8-110] [REFERRED TO]
KEJURAM VS. GAYNA BAI [LAWS(CHH)-2019-9-131] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN SINGH VS. INDER SINGH AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2016-12-33] [REFERRED TO]
KISHORI DEVI, WIFE OF SRILAL BABU VS. RAMESHWAR PRASAD, SON OF SHEO PRASAD, GOLDSMITH [LAWS(PAT)-2017-7-146] [REFERRED TO]
SURINDER KUMAR & OTHERS VS. SMT.SUMATI KUMARI [LAWS(HPH)-2017-12-24] [REFERRED TO]
EJAZ AHMED ASLAM VS. MOHAMMAD AZIM AHMED [LAWS(DLH)-2018-10-333] [REFERRED TO]
VIDIYA DEVI VS. AMICHAND [LAWS(RAJ)-2021-9-197] [REFERRED TO]
HPMC LIMITED VS. KEDAR SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2016-12-27] [REFERRED TO]
SURINDER KUMAR & OTHERS VS. SUMATI KUMARI JOSHI & OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2016-12-229] [REFERRED TO]
KUMARI MONIKA VS. BALDEV RAJ & OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2018-4-152] [REFERRED TO]
ANTONIETA B FERNANDES VS. ANA PAULA DO REGOE MENDES, D/O LATE WALTER FERNANDES [LAWS(BOM)-2018-7-120] [REFERRED TO]
NIRUPAMA KUNTI VS. MAYA RANI SAMNATA [LAWS(CAL)-2023-8-139] [REFERRED TO]
DEPUTY DIRECTOR, E.S.I.C VS. WARD MEMORIAL CHURCH SCHOOL [LAWS(CAL)-2023-9-117] [REFERRED TO]
KARNATAKA STATE AGRO VS. KERALA AGRO SEEDS [LAWS(KAR)-2019-12-7] [REFERRED TO]
RAMA DEO VS. STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-2019-1-39] [REFERRED TO]
PIAR CHAND & OTHERS VS. RANJEET SINGH & OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2016-9-163] [REFERRED]
JAGDISH CHAND & OTHERS VS. HARI SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2018-5-153] [REFERRED TO]
H P STATE FOREST CORPORATION VS. KAHAN SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2016-12-105] [REFERRED TO]
INFANT ADVERTISING PVT LTD VS. K B YELLAPPA REDDY [LAWS(KAR)-2018-2-55] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The centrirorial issue that has stemmed in this appeal by grant of special leave is whether an order of dismissal of the counter-claim being barred by principles of Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) can be set aside in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the C.P.C. or in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or is it required to be assailed by preferring an appeal.
(2.)The factual score need not be exposited in detail. Suffice it to state that one Phoolan Rani, wife of Om Prakash, and another instituted Civil Suit No. 107B of 2003 seeking a declaration that they are the owners in possession of the land admeasuring 1/9th share in the suit land and further praying for permanent injunction against the defendants. After issue of notice, the defendants entered contest and the defendant Nos.12 to 14 filed a counter-claim putting forth that they had the right, title and interest as the original owner, Jeth Ram, had executed a Will dated 18.5.1995 in their favour.
(3.)After the counter-claim was filed, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed an application for dismissal of the counter-claim on the foundation that the same did not merit consideration as it was barred by Order 2, Rule 2 of C.P.C. It was set forth in the application that a suit for declaration was earlier filed by the present appellants along with others against the defendants and a decree was passed in their favour on 21.9.2002 whereby it was held that the present appellants and some of the respondents were entitled to 1/4th share each. The judgment and decree passed in the said suit was assailed in appeal and the appellate court modified the judgment and decree dated 21.9.2002 vide judgment dated 15.2.2003 holding that each one of them was entitled to 1/9th share and the said modification was done on the ground that the property was ancestral in nature and the sisters had their shares. After disposal of the appeal, one of the sisters filed a declaratory suit to the effect that she is the owner in possession of land in respect of 1/9th share in the suit land and in the said suit a counter- claim was filed by defendant Nos. 12 to 14 stating that they had become owners in possession of the suit property on the basis of a properly registered Will dated 18.5.1995 executed by Jeth Ram. In the application it was set forth that the counter-claim had been filed in collusion with the plaintiff as the plea of claiming any status under the Will dated 18.5.1995 was never raised in the earlier suit. It was urged that the plea having not been raised in the earlier suit, it could not have been raised by way of a counter-claim in the second suit being barred by the principles of Order 2, Rule 2 of C.P.C.
(2.)The factual score need not be exposited in detail. Suffice it to state that one Phoolan Rani, wife of Om Prakash, and another instituted Civil Suit No. 107B of 2003 seeking a declaration that they are the owners in possession of the land admeasuring 1/9th share in the suit land and further praying for permanent injunction against the defendants. After issue of notice, the defendants entered contest and the defendant Nos.12 to 14 filed a counter-claim putting forth that they had the right, title and interest as the original owner, Jeth Ram, had executed a Will dated 18.5.1995 in their favour.
(3.)After the counter-claim was filed, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed an application for dismissal of the counter-claim on the foundation that the same did not merit consideration as it was barred by Order 2, Rule 2 of C.P.C. It was set forth in the application that a suit for declaration was earlier filed by the present appellants along with others against the defendants and a decree was passed in their favour on 21.9.2002 whereby it was held that the present appellants and some of the respondents were entitled to 1/4th share each. The judgment and decree passed in the said suit was assailed in appeal and the appellate court modified the judgment and decree dated 21.9.2002 vide judgment dated 15.2.2003 holding that each one of them was entitled to 1/9th share and the said modification was done on the ground that the property was ancestral in nature and the sisters had their shares. After disposal of the appeal, one of the sisters filed a declaratory suit to the effect that she is the owner in possession of land in respect of 1/9th share in the suit land and in the said suit a counter- claim was filed by defendant Nos. 12 to 14 stating that they had become owners in possession of the suit property on the basis of a properly registered Will dated 18.5.1995 executed by Jeth Ram. In the application it was set forth that the counter-claim had been filed in collusion with the plaintiff as the plea of claiming any status under the Will dated 18.5.1995 was never raised in the earlier suit. It was urged that the plea having not been raised in the earlier suit, it could not have been raised by way of a counter-claim in the second suit being barred by the principles of Order 2, Rule 2 of C.P.C.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.