RAM PRAKASH GUPTA Vs. RAJIV KUMAR GUPTA
LAWS(SC)-2007-10-4
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on
October 03,2007
RAM PRAKASH GUPTA
Appellant
VERSUS
Rajiv Kumar Gupta And Others
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
T ARIVANDANDAM VS. T V SATYAPAL [REFERRED TO]ROOP LAL SATHI VS. NACHHATTAR SINGH GILL [REFERRED TO]
I T C LIMITED VS. DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [REFERRED TO]
RAPTAKOS BRETT AND COMPANY LIMITED VS. GANESH PROPERTY [REFERRED TO]
RAPTAKOS BRETT AND COMPANY LIMITED VS. GANESH PROPERTY [REFERRED TO]
SALEEM BHAI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
SOPAN SUKHDEO SABLE VS. ASSISTANT CHARITY COMMISSIONER [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
KUMBHA RAM VS. KANHAIYA LAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-8-206] [REFERRED TO]SHAKTI BHOG FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2020-6-5] [REFERRED TO]
CUDDALORE POWERGEN CORPORATION LTD VS. M/S CHEMPLAST CUDDALORE VINYLS LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2025-1-64] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHA AGARWAL VS. KARANJEET SINGH [LAWS(UTN)-2014-9-32] [REFERRED TO]
CHUNDURU VISALAKSHI VS. CHUNDURU RAJENDRA PRASAD [LAWS(APH)-2022-4-27] [REFERRED TO]
PANCHAKARLA NAGAMANI VS. CHODE KANAKA MAHALAKSHMI [LAWS(APH)-2022-2-17] [REFERRED TO]
VARIS GULAMBHAI MAHIDA VS. MOHSIN AIYUB SIDAT [LAWS(GJH)-2023-8-727] [REFERRED TO]
VRINDAVAN CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD VS. MINAXIBEN GORDHANBHAI PATEL [LAWS(GJH)-2010-3-152] [REFERRED TO]
PARUL HOMOEO LABORATORY PVT. LTD. VS. ROYAL GROUP [LAWS(DLH)-2017-5-144] [REFERRED TO]
ASSEM AGGARWAL VS. ASHI KUMAR [LAWS(DLH)-2023-8-156] [REFERRED TO]
MAHIPAL SINGH RAWAT VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-8-251] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH KUMAR KEJRIWAL VS. MAHESH KUMAR KEJRIWAL [LAWS(CAL)-2013-3-19] [REFERRED TO]
SMTI. LIMASENLA AO W/O LATE B.S. SHARMA VS. SHRI. ARUN METHA HUSBAND OF LATE RITIKHA METHA [LAWS(GAU)-2017-5-149] [REFERRED TO]
SUNNATH JAMATH COMMITTEE OF MASJID-E-AKASHA VS. K ANTHONYSAMY [LAWS(MAD)-2009-8-409] [REFERRED TO]
COL. KALYAN SINGH THR. HIS LR. VS. WIMPY INTERNATIONAL LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-1-142] [REFERRED TO]
A SRIDHAR VS. RAJESH RANGARAJAN; G RAJAGOPAL; R KALYANI; R S R SECURITIES PVT LTD; S DINESH; DHANAM; S JAYAMANI [LAWS(MAD)-2014-9-486] [REFERRED]
RAJINDER KAUR VS. DARSHAN SINGH SAHI [LAWS(P&H)-2014-12-5] [REFERRED TO]
SANJEEV SOIN ALIAS SANJEEV VS. MANJU AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2015-7-485] [REFERRED]
MUKESH SINGH TOMAR, S/O SHRI MUNNA VS. RAKESH SHARMA, S/O SHRI AMRISH [LAWS(MPH)-2012-11-4] [REFERRED TO]
R.ARUMUGAM VS. PR.PALANISAMY [LAWS(MAD)-2013-1-84] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH KUMAR YADAV VS. PRASHANT ARORA [LAWS(ALL)-2008-7-26] [REFERRED TO]
RAJNI JAIN AND ORS. VS. PARAG JAIN [LAWS(DLH)-2015-2-67] [REFERRED TO]
P K PALANISAMY VS. N ARUMUGHAM [LAWS(SC)-2009-7-24] [REFERRED TO]
BONDAR VS. MISHRIBAI [LAWS(MPH)-2019-9-246] [REFERRED TO]
S.P.R. PUBLICATIONS VS. GANAPATHI INDUSTRIES [LAWS(TLNG)-2024-9-31] [REFERRED TO]
KISHAN SINGH AND ORS. VS. BHUPENDRA SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(UTN)-2020-6-14] [REFERRED TO]
GROMAX AGRI EQUIPMENT LIMITED VS. HINDUSTAN EARTHMOVERS PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(GJH)-2023-6-763] [REFERRED TO]
RAJIV KHANNA VS. M/S SUNRISE FREIGHT FORWARDERS PVT LTD & ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2016-5-173] [REFERRED TO]
SACHIN C SHAH VS. HEMANT D SHAH [LAWS(BOM)-2012-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA VS. REDDAPPA REDDY [LAWS(MAD)-2011-6-362] [REFERRED TO]
HDFC BANK LIMITED VS. GEE KAY INTERNATIONAL [LAWS(P&H)-2012-6-41] [REFERRED TO]
MORGAN SECURITIES AND CREDITS PVT. LTD. VS. BPL LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2023-1-18] [REFERRED TO]
AMBAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY VS. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE [LAWS(GJH)-2014-4-171] [REFERRED TO]
SAHAKAR CO-OP HOU SOC LTD VS. AMRAVAN CO-OP HOU SOC LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2013-8-182] [REFERRED TO]
CAPTAIN RAJESH KUMAR VS. PRAMILA SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-2024-9-6] [REFERRED TO]
AMRISH R. KILACHAND VS. MADHVI HARSH KILACHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2019-11-116] [REFERRED TO]
MEWARAM R SHAH VS. BHAWAR LAL [LAWS(KAR)-2013-4-77] [REFERRED TO]
SHEIKH AKBAR VS. CHAIRMAN, COAL INDIA LTD [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-2-192] [REFERRED TO]
N K MOHAMMED BASHEER VS. C K AHMED KUTTY [LAWS(KER)-2011-7-267] [REFERRED TO]
J.B. FRANKLIN VS. VISHWAKSEN INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD. [LAWS(MAD)-2020-5-65] [REFERRED TO]
B. A. VARADARAJACHAR VS. LAKSHMI VILAS BANK LTD [LAWS(KAR)-2022-2-193] [REFERRED TO]
TARLOCHAN SINGH VS. TEJPAL SINGH AND ORS [LAWS(P&H)-2015-9-689] [REFERRED]
KARMA DOMA GYATOS ALIAS BABILA KAZI VS. KESANG CHODEN [LAWS(SIK)-2009-4-5] [REFERRED TO]
BHAU RAM VS. JANAK SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2012-7-40] [REFERRED TO]
L. RAMACHANDRAN AND ORS. VS. K. RAMESH AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-9-33] [REFERRED TO]
DILIP GUPTA VS. DEBASHISH PALIT [LAWS(PAT)-2012-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. ORISSA SPINNING MILLS LTD. VS. M/S. OCL INDIA LTD. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-2015-2-73] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRAN AND ANOTHER VS. ETTAMMAL AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-2017-9-318] [REFERRED TO]
M V NARAYAN VS. S SUGUNA [LAWS(KAR)-2015-2-284] [REFERRED TO]
YASHAVANT VS. A.B.N. AMRO BANK N.V. [LAWS(KAR)-2013-2-239] [REFERRED TO]
N . TRIVENI VS. G . T . SHANKAR [LAWS(KAR)-2016-4-122] [REFERRED TO]
B. KRISHNAPPA VS. CAUVERY GRUHA NIRMANA AND ANR. [LAWS(KAR)-2016-8-224] [REFERRED TO]
PARMOD KUMAR JAIN VS. SATISH JAIN [LAWS(DLH)-2023-8-9] [REFERRED TO]
RT CONSTRUCTION VS. KOTEC AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2023-8-30] [REFERRED TO]
SIMA HOTELS AND RESORTS LIMITED VS. DUGAL PROJECTS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2012-12-36] [REFERRED TO]
ASHWIN DESAI VS. BIJAY KUMAR MANISH KUMAR HUF [LAWS(CAL)-2016-11-8] [REFERRED TO]
CHINTALA NARASIMHA REDDY, RANGA REDDY DIST VS. B. SATYANARAYANA, HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-2017-6-58] [REFERRED TO]
MYADI VS. RATNI [LAWS(RAJ)-2009-11-109] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHWENDRA SHARAN SINGH VS. RAM PRASANNA SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS [LAWS(SC)-2019-3-94] [REFERRED TO]
C.S. RAMASWAMY VS. V.K. SENTHIL [LAWS(SC)-2022-9-147] [REFERRED TO]
SANYA ENTERPRISES VS. RANJEET SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2023-10-6] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDAN KHANDEWAL VS. G. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY [LAWS(TLNG)-2024-1-50] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA KUMBHAT AND ORS. VS. DEVI AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-3-213] [REFERRED TO]
V K JOHN VS. W S SEETHARAM [LAWS(MAD)-2008-12-339] [REFERRED TO]
V K JOHN VS. W S SEETHARAM [LAWS(MAD)-2008-12-339] [REFERRED TO]
R MADESH VS. A M RATHINAM [LAWS(MAD)-2008-1-147] [REFERRED TO]
S.RAMANAN VS. IDOL OF SRI PATTESWARA SWAMY [LAWS(MAD)-2020-5-62] [REFERRED TO]
JAIPAL SINGH VS. AMAN SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-7-357] [REFERRED TO]
MUNNI BEGUM VS. JAGBIR SINGH YADAV AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-2-99] [REFERRED TO]
VIMAL BUILDERS VS. KETAN KANTILAL THAKKAR [LAWS(BOM)-2009-9-12] [REFERRED TO]
HASMUKHBHAI BHAGWANBHAI PATEL VS. HUSENALI ANWARALI CHARANIYA [LAWS(GJH)-2023-9-46] [REFERRED TO]
AKASH MOHAN GUPTA VS. NEERA BURRA [LAWS(DLH)-2022-12-139] [REFERRED TO]
ATMA SINGH VS. PREM SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2022-8-89] [REFERRED TO]
ARJUN SINGH GUPTA (DECEASED) AND ANR VS. AJAY KUMAR GUPTA AND ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2017-2-187] [REFERRED TO]
LEGAND ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. MIR ZAHEER MOHAMMED KHAN [LAWS(APH)-2017-8-38] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH KUMAR ALIAS CHANDRA KHOWALA VS. MAMATA CHAKRABORTY [LAWS(CAL)-2012-3-48] [REFERRED TO]
K CHANDRAN VS. V GEETHALAKSHMI [LAWS(MAD)-2012-9-445] [REFERRED]
MASRUR FATEMA JAFARALI SAIYED VS. VISHNUBHAI AMBALAL PATEL [LAWS(GJH)-2016-11-72] [REFERRED TO]
ANNAPURANI VS. MUTHUPILLAI [LAWS(MAD)-2021-3-228] [REFERRED TO]
MASJID-E-AKASHA, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT VS. K. ANTHONYSAMY [LAWS(MAD)-2009-8-596] [REFERRED TO]
INDU CHAWLA VS. BHARAT CHAWALA [LAWS(DLH)-2014-1-365] [REFERRED TO]
AMARJEET KAUR VS. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(DLH)-2014-3-54] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KAMAL MISRA VS. ANIL KHANNA [LAWS(DLH)-2018-5-452] [REFERRED TO]
CHAIRMAN KAUSHIK BALWANTRAI VS. AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(GJH)-2025-3-26] [REFERRED TO]
AXIS BANK LTD. VS. SHAIWALI PALIWAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-5-70] [REFERRED TO]
NAGARMAL S/O HEMA MALI (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS VS. THE BOARD OF REVENUE FOR RAJASTHAN AJMER [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-9-294] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY BHARGAVA VS. SEEMA BHARGAVA [LAWS(DLH)-2014-7-142] [REFERRED TO]
RESHMA POSWAL VS. NAMRATA DWIVEDI [LAWS(HPH)-2022-12-68] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV LAL DODA VS. SUNIL KUMAR JAKHAR [LAWS(P&H)-2014-7-574] [REFERRED TO]
M NAMACHIVAYAM VS. M THIRUNAVUKKARASU [LAWS(MAD)-2009-9-248] [REFERRED TO]
P. KUMARAKURUBARAN VS. P. NARAYANAN [LAWS(SC)-2025-4-157] [REFERRED TO]
BISWANATH BANIK VS. SULANGA BOSE [LAWS(SC)-2022-3-116] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD FAROOQ VS. YOGESH [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-1-406] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHU LAL BAHUGUNA VS. UMESH SHARMA KAU [LAWS(UTN)-2020-12-71] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
P. Sathasivam, J. -
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.4.2006 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Regular First Appeal No. 188 of 2006 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein. The respondents are the sons of the appellants elder brother who died in the year 1986.
(3.)The brief facts are as under: In the year 1957, since the appellant was a handicapped person, the father of the appellant purchased a piece of land in the name of and for the benefit of the appellant herein, who was minor at that time by way of registered sale deed dated 02.09.1957. The father of the appellant died in the year 1965 and at the time of his death, the plot underneath the house in question was lying vacant. The appellant was actively engaged in the business, therefore, in the year 1966 he raised a full fledged 3 storey house on the said plot with his funds. Moreover, a loan of Rs. 30,000/- was also taken from the Life Insurance Corporation by the appellant for construction of the house and later on it was repaid. After constructing the house, the first floor of the building was let out to one Aseema Architect by the appellant in the year 1969. The appellant and his family and the respondents father and his family were living together in House No. 107, Chawri Bazar, Delhi. Since relations between the brothers were cordial, on request of the respondents father, the appellant allowed him to use the second floor of the house as a licensee. In the year 1974, respondents father played a fraud and filed two suits in the name of his sons respondents herein, bearing Suit No. 183 of 1974 and 133 of 1974 for declaration and possession of the ground/first floor. There is no dispute of ownership of the appellant as far as the second and third floors of the house are concerned. In September 1986, after the death of their father, the respondents claimed the possession of the first floor of the building on the basis that they had obtained some decree from the Court, the particulars of which were not disclosed. In spite of best efforts, the appellant could not obtain the details of the case, therefore, no action could be taken. Aseema Architect, who was paying rent to the appellant, stopped payment of rent and in the year 1989, filed interpleader suit No. 424 of 1989 alleging therein that there is a bona fide dispute about the person(s) to whom the rent is payable. In that suit, the details of the decree obtained frequently in the year 1976 was disclosed. On 7.2.1990, the appellant herein filed Suit No. 378 of 1993 before the Additional Dist. Judge, Delhi praying for the following reliefs:
a) declare plaintiff (appellant herein) as absolute and exclusive owner of H.No.8, Nizamuddin Basti, N.D. and to declare the decrees dated 5.2.1976 in Suit No. 183/74 and dated 19.1.1976 in Suit No. 133/74 as null and void.
b) Grant decree for possession of 2nd floor of H.No.8, Nizamuddin Basti, New Delhi in favour of the appellant herein.
Written statement was filed by the respondents herein in which the respondents had taken the plea that the appellant appeared in the suits and as such he had full knowledge of the case. The following issues were framed by the trial Court:
(1) Whether the suit is barred by limitation
(2) Whether Plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration that the plaintiff is absolute and exclusive owner of the suit property in question
(3) Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration declaring the decree dated 5.2.1976 in Suit No. 183/74 as null and void
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of possession as prayed for
Evidence by way of affidavit of the plaintiff (appellant herein) was filed on which cross examination of the appellant was closed. In the cross-examination, no question on limitation was asked by the respondents. It is at this stage, the respondent moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint on the ground of suit being barred by law of limitation. Reply to the said application was filed. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the appellant herein merely on the basis of the limitation holding that since partial rejection of the plaint is not permitted in law, the entire plaint has to be rejected.
(2.)This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.4.2006 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Regular First Appeal No. 188 of 2006 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein. The respondents are the sons of the appellants elder brother who died in the year 1986.
(3.)The brief facts are as under: In the year 1957, since the appellant was a handicapped person, the father of the appellant purchased a piece of land in the name of and for the benefit of the appellant herein, who was minor at that time by way of registered sale deed dated 02.09.1957. The father of the appellant died in the year 1965 and at the time of his death, the plot underneath the house in question was lying vacant. The appellant was actively engaged in the business, therefore, in the year 1966 he raised a full fledged 3 storey house on the said plot with his funds. Moreover, a loan of Rs. 30,000/- was also taken from the Life Insurance Corporation by the appellant for construction of the house and later on it was repaid. After constructing the house, the first floor of the building was let out to one Aseema Architect by the appellant in the year 1969. The appellant and his family and the respondents father and his family were living together in House No. 107, Chawri Bazar, Delhi. Since relations between the brothers were cordial, on request of the respondents father, the appellant allowed him to use the second floor of the house as a licensee. In the year 1974, respondents father played a fraud and filed two suits in the name of his sons respondents herein, bearing Suit No. 183 of 1974 and 133 of 1974 for declaration and possession of the ground/first floor. There is no dispute of ownership of the appellant as far as the second and third floors of the house are concerned. In September 1986, after the death of their father, the respondents claimed the possession of the first floor of the building on the basis that they had obtained some decree from the Court, the particulars of which were not disclosed. In spite of best efforts, the appellant could not obtain the details of the case, therefore, no action could be taken. Aseema Architect, who was paying rent to the appellant, stopped payment of rent and in the year 1989, filed interpleader suit No. 424 of 1989 alleging therein that there is a bona fide dispute about the person(s) to whom the rent is payable. In that suit, the details of the decree obtained frequently in the year 1976 was disclosed. On 7.2.1990, the appellant herein filed Suit No. 378 of 1993 before the Additional Dist. Judge, Delhi praying for the following reliefs:
a) declare plaintiff (appellant herein) as absolute and exclusive owner of H.No.8, Nizamuddin Basti, N.D. and to declare the decrees dated 5.2.1976 in Suit No. 183/74 and dated 19.1.1976 in Suit No. 133/74 as null and void.
b) Grant decree for possession of 2nd floor of H.No.8, Nizamuddin Basti, New Delhi in favour of the appellant herein.
Written statement was filed by the respondents herein in which the respondents had taken the plea that the appellant appeared in the suits and as such he had full knowledge of the case. The following issues were framed by the trial Court:
(1) Whether the suit is barred by limitation
(2) Whether Plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration that the plaintiff is absolute and exclusive owner of the suit property in question
(3) Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration declaring the decree dated 5.2.1976 in Suit No. 183/74 as null and void
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of possession as prayed for
Evidence by way of affidavit of the plaintiff (appellant herein) was filed on which cross examination of the appellant was closed. In the cross-examination, no question on limitation was asked by the respondents. It is at this stage, the respondent moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint on the ground of suit being barred by law of limitation. Reply to the said application was filed. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the appellant herein merely on the basis of the limitation holding that since partial rejection of the plaint is not permitted in law, the entire plaint has to be rejected.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.