LexM/S KANHIYA SINGH SANTOK SINGH & ORS. versus KARTAR SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 3 S.C.R. 1111
MIS KANHIYA SINGH SANTOK SINGH & ORS.
A
v.
KARTAR SINGH
(Civil Appeal No. 1525 of 2009)
MARCH 4, 2009
B
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.]
-+
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - 0.22 r.3 - Substitution
of legal representatives - Eviction decree against tenant and
his firm - Death of tenant during pendency of second appeal c
- Application for substitution of legal representatives of
deceased - Dismissal of application and abatement of
second appeal as applicants not tenant uls. 3(vii) since they
were not ordinarily carrying on business as members of family
of deceased till time of his death - On appeal, held: Status
D
.f
of appellants as tenants was ambiguous - Hence, matter
remitted to High Court- Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent
and Eviction) Act, 1950 - s. 3(vii).
The question which arose for consideration in this
E
appeal was whether the two sons of the deceased-tenant .
could be substituted as his legal representatives under
{
0. 22 r. 3 CPC to prosecute the second appeal filed by
deceased against the eviction decree, pursuant to the
provisions of s. 3 (vii) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control
F
of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Considering the ambiguous position as
regard the appellants relating to their status as tenants,
G
it was necessary for the High Court to remit the matter
to the trial court for a proper determination of the factual
aspects. [Para 13) [1119-B]
1111
H
1112
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 3 S.C.R.
A
1.2. Even if it is proved that the appellants were
carrying on business with the original tenant late SS, this
would not fulfill the requirements laid down under section
3 (vii) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and
Eviction) Act, 1950 which necessitates that the heirs and
B legal representatives of the tenant should have been
carrying on business with him as his family members
upto the time of his death. The submission that going by
the settlement arrived at by the family it is amply clear that
"
the family had partitioned and the brothers were living
c independently of late SS and running their own business,
cannot be accepted at this stage. The alleged settlement
arrived at by the family and signed by its members do not
conclusively point out to the fact that the members had
separated and they ceased to exist as a Joint Hindu family
0 of late SS. It is evident from the settlement deed that at
the time of the execution of the said document, the
*
appellants were minors and it was signed by SS himself
on their behalf. Moreover, it is apparent that the said
document only distributed the capital of the business and
did not in any way divide the business among the
E members of the family. Thus the said document indicated
shares of each party in the business to be carried on. The
statement of the second witness who was a part of the
settlement arrived as a witness, and. had put his signature
thereof as the same illustrates that the settlement was for
F the partition of capital of the business and not the
business in itself. It is evident that the appellants were the
members of the same family to which late SS belonged.
The only thing that needs to be determined is whether
they were ordinarily carrying on business at the time of
G his death. This should be decided by the trial court
according to the provisions of 0. 22 r. 5 CPC by
.,
production of oral and documentary evidence before the
trial court. [Para 14] [1119-E, F, G, H; 1120-A,B; 1120-E]
H
1.3. The impugned Judgment of the High Court is set
M/S KANHIYA SINGH SANTOK SINGH & ORS. v.
1113
KARTAR SINGH
~
aside. The matter is remitted back to the High Court, who
A
in turn, would direct the trial court to take evidence in the
manner indicated and after considering the evidence
(documentary and oral) brought on record by the parties
shall make a finding on the status of the appellants and
the record1 thereafter may be sent back to the High Court
8
with the findings and the evidence that would be adduced
and already on record and only thereafter, the High Court
•
shall dispose of the second appeal. [Paras 16 and 17)
[1121-B; 1122-C, DJ
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. c
1525 of 2009.
From the Judgment & Order dated 10.01.08 of the High
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in S.8.
Civil Second Appeal No. 486/2002.
D
_,
Sushil Kr. JainExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.