LexINBASEGARAM AND ANOTHER versus S. NATARAJAN (DEAD) THR. LRS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A 8 [2014] 10 S.C.R. 1202 INBASEGARAM AND ANOTHER 0 v. S. NATARAJAN (DEAD) THR. LRS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 4215-4216 of 2007 etc.) OCTOBER 29, 2014 [M.Y. EQBAL AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: c 0.2, r.2 - Bar to second suit - Plaintiff filing a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain defendants from interfering with his possession - Second suit filed by plaintiff for specific performance of contract for sale in respect of the same property - The two suits. and the cause of action D mentioned therein would show that the causes of action and reliefs sought for are quite distinct and are not same - Therefore, provisions of 0. 2, r. 2 will not apply. 'Cause of action' - Explained. E Precedent: F G H Ratio of a decision - Must be understood in the background of the facts of that case. Appeal: First appeal - High Court, being the final court of facts in a first appeal, is required to decide all the points formulated by it - Matter remanded to High Court to decide the appeals by recording its finding on all points formulated by it. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. The first suit was filed by the plaintiff- appellant for the grant of permanent injunction restraining 1202 INBASEGARAN v. S. NATARAJAN (DEAD) THR. 1203 LRS. the defendant, his agents and servants from interfering A with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff either by attempting to trespass into it or in any other manner whatsoever. Besides other facts, it was pleaded that in pursuance of the sale agreement the plaintiff took possession of the suit plot from the s defendant and began construction. The suit was filed mainly on the cause of action which arose when the defendant attempted to forcibly occupy the suit property by driving away plaintiff's workers and that the defendant was arranging to forcibly and unlawfully take possession c of the suit property. [para 16) [1213-C, D, G, HJ 1.2. In the subsequent suit filed by the plaintiff, a decree for specific performance of the agreement for sale was claimed on the ground inter alia that the defendant in the earlier suit took a defence that the sale agreement D was allegedly given up or dropped by the plaintiff. The cause of action, as pleaded by the plaintiff in the subsequent suit, arose when defendant-respondent disclosed the transfer made by Housing Board in his favour and finally when the defendant was exhibiting an E intention of not performing his part of the sale agreement and in reply to the lawyer's notice the defendant made a false allegation and denied to execute the sale deed as per the agreement. [para 17) [1214-B-C] 1.3. Thus, a perusal of the pleadings in the two suits and the causes of action mentioned therein would show that the causes of action and reliefs sought for are quite distinct and are not same. [para 18) [1214-D] F Virgo Industries (Eng.) (P) Ltd. vs. Venturetech Solutions G (P) Ltd. 2012 (7) scR 933 = (2013) 1 sec 625 - held inapplicable 1.4. It is well settled that the ratio of any decision must H 1204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 10 S.C.R. A be understood in the background of the facts of that case. [para 30] [1224-H] B Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. and Another vs. N. R. Vairamani and another 2004 (4) Suppl. SCR 923 = (2004) 8 sec 579 - relied on. 1.5. Cause of action consists of a bundle of facts which will be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to get a relief from the Court. When the causes of action for the two suits are different and distinct and the C evidences to support the relief in the two suits are also different then the provisions of 0. 2, r.2 CPC will not apply. [para 19] [1214-E-F] Gurbux Singh vs. Bhooralal 1964 SCR 831 =AIR 1964 0 SC 1810 - followed. Kewal Singh vs. Lajwanti, 1980 (1) SCR 854 = (1980) 1 SCC 290; Deva Ram vs. lshwar Chand, 1995 (4) Suppl. SCR 369 = (1995) 6 SCC 733; Sidramappa vs. Rajashetty & Ors. 1970 (3) SCR 319 =AIR (1970) SC 1059; State of M.P. v. E State of Maharashtra & Ors. 1977 (2) SCR 555 = (1977) 2 sec 288 - relied on. Mohd. Khalil Khan & Ors. vs. Mahbub Ali Mian & Ors. AIR (36) 1949 Privy Council 78 - referred to. F 2.1. The High Court, being the final court of facts in a first appeal, is required to decide all the points formulated by it. In the instant case, the High Court, although formulated various points for consideration and decision but h
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.