LexBEOHAR RAJENDRA SINHA & ORS. versus STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H BEOHAR RAJENDRA SINHA & ORS. v. STATE OF M.P. & ORS. March 11, 1969 [M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., V. RAMASWAMI AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.] Civil Procedure Code 1908, S. 80-Karta of Hindu Joint fomily giving notice of suit under section SO-Thereafter members of family dividing on partition-Divided n1e1nbers joining as plaintiffs in suit- Whether fresh notice necessary by divided n1e111bers or previous notice of Karta was in representative capacity. The appellant, who was at the time the Karta of a Hindu Joint Family, gave notice in January, 1954, to the respondent State under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code. Thereafter a suit was filed in July, 1954, by \\'bich time a partition had taken place in the family. In view of this the appellant's three grand·sons were joined as plaintiffs in the suit; the plaintiffs sought a declaration that th'rec nazul plots in suit had been in the possession of the plaintiffs and their ancestors from time immemorial and their status was that of Raiyat Sarkar; so that an order of the State Government in the Survey and Settlement Department refusing to re- cognise their possession ove'r the plots was wrong and ultra vires. Apart from contesting the suit on the- merits, the respondent State contended that plaintiffs 2, 3 and 4 i.e. the appellant's grand-sons had no right to ins- titute a suit because no notice under SC9tion 80 C.P.C. was given on their behalf. The trial court dismissed the suit. In an appeal, the High Court held that the appellant had lost the right to represent the joint family as karta at the time of institution of the suit because their had been sevetence of joint status and the notic1c served by him could not enure to the benefit of other plaintiffs. On the merits the High Court found that the plaintiffs had shown their possession for the statutory period of 6 years. On appeal to this Court, HELD: (1) The notice given hy the ap~ellant in January, 1954, was sufficient in law to sustain a suit brought by all the divided coparceners who must be deemed to be as much the -nuthors- of the notice as the Karta who was the actual signatory of the notice. Thc'rc was suhstantial identity bet\vcen the person giving- the notice and the persons bringing the suit in the present case. r959 Bl At the time of giving notice the appellt\nt was admittedly the eldest n1cmber of the joint family and being a Karla he \Vas entitled to reprc- -;cnt the joint family in all its affairs. The cause of action had accrued at the time qf giving of the notice and it was not necessary to give a sccbnd notice merely because there \vas a severence of the joint family. before 20th July, 1954, when the suit was actuallv imtituted. [958 G-H] Although the terms of section 80 C.P.C. must be strictly complied ... vith, that docs not mean that the terms of the notice should he scrutinised in an artificial or pedantic manner. [960 Al Dhian SinRh Sabha Singh & Anr. v. The Union of India, [1958) S.C.R. 781, referred to. 956 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1969] 3 S.C.R. :>late of Andhra Pradesh v. Gundugo/a Venkata Suryanarayan Garu, A !1964] 4 S.C.R. 945; Ve//ayan Chettiar & Ors. v. Government of the Province of Madras and Anr., A.l.R. 1947, P.C. 197; Government of the Province of Bombay v. Peslonji Ardeshir W adia & Ors., 76 I.A. 85, distin- guished. · (2) On the merits, the appellants had failed to produce reliable oral or documentary evidence to prove that their ancestors had possession over the disputed land for many years. On the contrary this land was always B recognised as Milkiat Sarkar and the respondent State Government was justified in holding it as such. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 386 and 387 of 1966. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and_ decree dated c April 16, 1963 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in First Appeal No. 217 of 1959. S. V. Gupte, P. C. Bhartari and J. B. Dadachanji, for the appellants (in C.A. No. 386 of 1966) and the respondents (in C.A. No. 387 of 1966). I. N. Shroff a!lld Rama Gupta, for the State of Madhya Pradesh. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. These appeals are brought by special leave from the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 16th April, 1963 in First Appeal No. 217 of 1959, where- by the High Court modified partly the judgment of the first Addi- tional District Judge, Jabalpur dismissing Civil Suit No. 10-A of 1954.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.