LexGAIV DINSHAW IRANI & ORS. versus TEHMTAN IRANI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c ·Lease: [2014] $ S.C.R. 646 GAIV DINSHAW !RANI & ORS. v. TEHMTAN !RANI & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 4887 of 2014) APRIL 25, 2014 [GYAN SUDHA MISRA AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.) Government land - Tenancy rights - Disposal of by means of a will - Explained - Original tenant bequeathing the property by a will in favour of his children and wife - Appointing his wife as a residuary legatee - Wife died intestate - Held: 0 As per s.52 of Indian Succession Act, prior to the amendment of"1991, a Parsi female intestate's property shall be divided equally amongst her children and the statute does not distinguish between step-childre~ and children - Tenancy which was jointly held by residuary legatee and her. sons E devolved upon her sons on her death by virtue of their being joint tenants and her heirs under Indian Succession Act - Therefore, transfer by BMC in favour of second defendant is illegal and void ab initio - Consequently, all events that follow, i.e. surrender of part of tenancy by second defendant F and in lieu allotment of new plot to him ar~ also rendered void ab initia and construction by appellants on said plot is illegal - Indian Succession Act, 1925 - s. 52. · Subsequent events: G Moulding of relief - By High Court in appeal u/s 96 CPC - Held: In ordinary course of litigation, rights of parties are crystallized on the date the suit is instituted and only ttie sam,e set of facts· must be considered - However, in the interest of justice, a court including a court of appeal ills 96 CPC is not H 646 GAIV DINSHAW IRANi v.TEHMTAN IRANI 647 ~ . ..,. precluded from taking note of developments subsequent to A commencement of litigation, when such events have a direct bearing on the relief claimed by a party or on the entire purpose of the suit, and courts taking note of the same should mould the relief accordingly - In the instant case, appellants during pendency of civil suits sought interim orders from High B Court and on the basis of said orders constructed structure on the condition that rights of five flats were to be retained and they were subject to the outcome of the suit - High Court taking note of the subsequent events has correctly mouldf!d the relief and allotted five flats to five respondents as per their c share.- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s.96 - Power of appellate court to mould relief pursuant to subsequent events. The original tenant of the suit property executed a will dated 15.10.1934 in favour of his children and wife, appointing his wife as a residuary legatee of the will D (residuary legatee). The original tenant died in 1946 and the said will was probated. In 1961 the Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC) respondent no. 6 iss~ed eviction notices to the heirs of the original tenant, which they objected to and consented to the tenancy being E transferred in the name of defendant no. 2, one of the five sons of the original tenant. On 3.2.1962, the residuary legatee addressed a letter to BMC for transfer of rent bills in the name of defendant no. 2. The BMC passed eviction order dated 24.10.1963, wh.ich was challenged by the F heirs of original tenant in Suit No. 545111963 filed by them as joint tenants. The suit was decreed and the order passed by BMC. terminating the tenancy was set .aside . . BMC transferred the tenancy in favour of defendant no. , 2,_ who subsequently surrendered tenancy rights of the G _i suit premises and in exchange he was granted a lease ·of 60 years on a part of the suit premises on which he . started construction. The legal heirs of the _other sons of the original tenant, namely; respondents nos. 1 to 5 filed two suits, i.e. Long Cause Suit No. 1914 of 1983 H . 648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R. A challenging the transfer of tenancy in favour of defendant no. 2 and Long Cause Suit No. 1877 of 1985 challenging surrender of tenancy and grant of fresh lease in favour of defendant no. 2. The plaintiffs sought certain interim reliefs and not satisfied with the interim orders, filed A.O. B No. 438/1988 and the High Court passed interim orders allowing the defendants to proceed with the construction work subject to the conditions imposed and directed the trial court to dispose of the suits. The trial court dismissed both the suits. However, the High Court c allowed both the appeals of the plaintiffs holding that the original plaintiffs (respondents) were joint tenants with o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.