(2012) 7 SCC 738 : JT 2012 (6) SC 450 : (2012) 6 SCALE 143 : 2012 AIR SCW
4248 : AIR 2012 SC (CIVIL) 2355
(SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) A. NAWAB JOHN Appellant Versus V.N. SUBRAMANIYAM Responde nt (BEFORE : P. SATHASIVAM AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.) Civil Appeal Nos. 4838-4840 of 2012 (Arising Out of Slp (Civil) Nos.20349-20351 of 2007), Decided On : 03-07-2012 Transfer of Property Act, 1882Section 52Lis PendensWhen a pendente lite purchaser seeks to implead himself as a party-defendant to suit, such application should be liberally consideredEffect of Section 52 is not to render transfers affected during pendency of suit by a party to suit void but only to render such transfers subservient to the rights of parties to such suit, as may be, eventually, determined in the suitTransfer remains valid subject to result of suitPendente lite purchaser would be entitled to or suffer same legal rights and obligations of his vendor as may be eventually determined by Court. (Paras 17 and 19) 2012 AIR SCW 5419 : AIR 2012 SC (CIVIL) 2831 : JT 2012 (10) SC 97 : (2012) 9 SCALE 582
(SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) ABDUL REHMAN AND ANOTHER Appellant Versus MOHD. RULDU AND OTHERS Respondent (BEFORE : P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOI J.) Civil Appeal No, 7043 of 2012 (Arising Out of Slp (C) No. 6324 of 2008, Decided On : 27-09-2012 Civil Procedure Code, 1908Order 6, Rule 17Amendment of plaint Parties to suit are permitted to bring forward amendment of their pleadings at any stage of proceeding for the purpose of determining real question in controversy between themCourts have to be liberal in accepting same if same is made prior to commencement of trialIf such application is made after commencement of trial, Court has to arrive at a conclusion that in spite of due diligence, party could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial. (Para 7) Civil Procedure Code, 1908Order 6, Rule 17Amendment of plaint RejectionOriginally, appellants have approached trial Court for permanent prohibitory injunctionEntire factual matrix for relief sought for under proposed amendment had already been set out in unamended plaint Challenge to voidness of sale deeds was implicit in factual matrix set out in unamended plaintRelief of cancellation of sale deeds as sought by amendment does not change nature of suitApplication for amendment allowed. (Paras 9 to 16) Counsel For Parties:
AIR 2000 SC 3587 : (2000) 9 SCC 335 : JT 2000 (9) SC 35
(SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) BIJOYO KUMAR PATTANAIK Appellant Versus BASANTA KUMAR PATNAIK AND OTHERS Respondent (BEFORE: S. B. MAJMUDAR AND U. C. BANERJEE, JJ.) Civil Appeal No. 1267 of 1988, Decided on: 04-04-2000. Civil Procedure Code, 1908Order 1, Rule 10Transposition of partiesSuit for partitionMunsif Court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain suitPlaintiff instead of praying for return of plaint for presentation to proper Court sought transposition of certain plaintiffs as defendantsConsidering fact that suit was pending and if transposition is allowed the suit would again fall within pecuniary jurisdiction of Munsiffs CourtTo avoid zig-zag procedure, Supreme Court allowed to transpose original plaintiffs 2 to 5 as Defendants 4 to 7 exercising power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and to amend plaint. -------------------------------------------------------- UNREGISTERED PARTITION DEED NOT ADMISSIBLE - SC In the decision reported in Bhagwan Das and Others v. Girja Shanker and Another, JT 2000(Suppl.1) S.C. 246, the appellant claimed exclusive possession of property on the basis of an unregistered partition deed and the respondents therein claimed possession along with the appellants/ plaintiffs. The said unregistered partition deed was held to be inadmissible in evidence and the question was held in favour of the defendants/ respondents. In appeal, the Honourable Apex Court held that since the document relied on by the appellants therein was unregistered, it was rightly held by the High Court as inadmissible in evidence.
ONCE DOCUMENT IS ADMITTED CANNOT BE QUESTIONED LATER Apex Court in the case Javer Chand v. Pukhraj Suranareported in AIR 1961 SC 1655, a Constitution Bench judgment. The relevant portion of the report reads to this effect:- "Once the Court rightly or wrongly, decides to admit the document in evidence, so far as the parties are concerned, the matter is closed. ........... Once a document has been admitted in evidence, as aforesaid, it is not open either to the trial Court itself or to a Court of appeal or revision to go behind that order. Such an order is not one of those judicial orders, which are liabe to be reviewed or revised by the same Court or a Court of superior jurisdiction."
Plea of res-judicata in suit for injunction and in title suit Reference may be made to the decision of this court in the case of Sulochana Amma vs. Narayanan Nair, [(1994) 2 SCC 14 Para 9] on the issue between the same parties or persons under whom they claim title or litigating under the same title, it operates as a res-judicata. A plea decided even in suit for injunction touching the title between the same parties, would operate as res judicata : It is a settled law that in a suit for injunction when title is in issue, for the purpose of granting injunction the issue directly and substantially arises in that suit between the parties. When the same is put in issue in a later suit based on title between the same parties or their privies in a subsequent suit, the decree in injunction suit equally operates as a res judicata." 39)To the same effect, the judgment of this court in the case of Sulochana Amma vs. Narayanan Nair, [(1994) 2 SCC 14 Para 9] in which it has been held that the issue between the same parties or persons under whom they claim title or litigating under the same title, it operates as a res judicata. A plea decided even in suit for injunction touching the title between the same parties, would operate as res judicata Entries in revenue records do not confer any title In Sajana Granites (12 supra), a Division Bench of this court made an observation that "the entries in revenue records do not confer any title." This court made such an observation having noticed that the document Ex.A11 therein is not the patta, which is the primary evidence, and is only an extract from the revenue register, it is secondary evidence on the issue relating to grant of patta. Since no record from the office of the Settlement Officer was summoned to show that the Settlement Officer examined the history of the suit property, the court refused to grant declaration of title merely basing upon Ex.A11 an extract from the Revenue Register."
Andhra High Court Union Of India (Uoi) Represented ... vs Vasavi Cooperative Housing ... on 6 September, 2002 Equivalent citations: 2002 (5) ALD 532, 2002 (5) ALT 370
Objection by third party challenging delivery of possession in execution of decree