Chhajju Ram Vs. Neki Ram & Others Subject matter of the case - What is the meaning of "Any other sufficient cause" and principle "of Ejusdem Generis" under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. ? Facts of the case - 1. On 22nd October, 1912 one Mr. Chhajju Ram purchased certain lands of villages Kasgar and Jammi Kera from Mrs. Forbes for Rs. 42,000/- Mr. Chhajju Ram also took the possession of the above properties after the execution of the sale deed in his favour. 2. Neki Ram and others filed a suit against Chhajju Ram alleging that the execution of the above sale deed in favour of the defendant is collusive hence the same be declared null and void and the plaintiffs be given the possession of the said land on payment of Rs. 15,000/- on the basis of their preemptions. It was argued by the plaintiffs that :- i. The plaintiffs are Gaur Brahmins by caste and are the occupancy tenants of village Kasgar and were the members of Agriculture Tribes within the meaning
State of Punjab Vs. Nathu Ram
Subject matter of the case - What is the effect of abatement of appeal against the respondents under Order 22 Rule 4 & 11 and Order 2 Rule 9 C.P.C.?
Facts of the case :-
1. The government of Punjab acquired the land of Nathu Ram and Labhoo Ram on lease for defence purpose.
2. Nathu Ram and Labhoo Ram who were real brothers refused to accept the compensation offered by them by collector. They applied to the Punjab government for more compensation as provided by Rule 6 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Act, 1943.
3. The state government referred this dispute to an arbitrator under Rule 10 who submitted an award enhancing the rate of compensation to be given to both the brothers.
4. The state government filed an appeal against the award of the arbitrator in Punjab High Court. But during the pendency of the appeal one of the respondents Mr. Labhoo Ram died. The state government failed to bring his heirs on record within the prescribed time. The High Court, therefore, held that the appeal abated against Labhoo Ram and consequently against Nathu Ram also and dismissed the same.
The state government appealed to Supreme Court against this decision after receiving the certificate of fitness from the High Court.
Decision of Supreme Court :-
Observing Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. their Lordships of Supreme Court said that although it is true that the abatement of the appeal cannot be against one respondent only yet there are remaining respondents. Their Lordships further observed that the same conclusion is to be drawn from Order 1 Rule 9 C.P.C. which says that no suit shall be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties and the court is entitled to decide the dispute considering the rights of the parties before it. In case of the court is unable to establish such rights then the proceedings cannot proceed to decide.
Their Lordships of Supreme Court further observed that it is not possible to lay down an exhaustive statement about such circumstances because each case will depend on its own facts, however the court generally will not proceed to decide the appeal in case the following three conditions exist:-
i. When the success of appeal may lead to contradictory decisions between the appellant and deceased respondent.
ii. When the appellant could not have brought the action for necessary relief against the remaining respondents alone.
iii. When decree, if passed against the surviving respondents, could not be executed successfully.
Thus it is clear that when the appeal is made against a decree this is not joint and the appeal which is not disposed of jointly against both the surviving respondents then the proceeding can proceed ahead even when the heirs of the deceased have not been brought on the record. But the difficulty arises when there is a joint decree. There is a difference of opinion on this point. According to one view the abatement could be confined to the particular interest of the deceased respondent and that the decree against the other respondents can properly be dealt with by the appellate court but this opinion was not accepted by their Lordships. Their Lordship's expressed the view that appellate court has no right to amend or modify the decree directly or indirectly. It is established in the present case that the award of the arbitrator was jointly passed in favour of both the brothers where in the appellant contended that both the brothers were having equal shares in the properties as recorded in the revenue record. But their lordships didn't agree with the above contention genuineness of the revenue record hence it is not lawful for the absence of the legal heirs. In this case the award of the arbitrator was made in favour of both the brothers jointly, hence the appellate court has no right to decide on the basis of their distinct respective shares.
The Lordship's therefore, dismissed the appeal with no cost.
Principles of Law laid down in this case :-
1. When Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. does not provide for abatement of appeals against co-respondents of the deceased respondents then the question whether the appeal can proceed against them still remains to be considered.
2. The court will not proceed with an appeal under the following three circumstances:-
i. When the success of the appeal may lead to the contradictory decisions between the appellant and the deceased respondent.
ii. When the appellant could not have brought the action for the necessary reliefs against the surviving respondents alone.
iii. When the decree, if passed against the surviving respondents, could not be executed successfully.
Comments
Post a Comment