LexMADAN MOHAN MISHRA versus CHANRIKA PANDEY (DEAD) BY LRS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009) 2 S.C.R. 590 A MADAN MOHAN MISHRA V. CHANRIKA PANDEY (DEAD) BY LRS. Civil Appeal No. 1078 of 2009 B FEBRUARY 17, 2009 [S.8. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 : ! s. 49 - Bar to civil court jurisdiction _,Suit seeking setting c aside· of gift deed in respect of agricultural land - Abated in view of initiation of consolidation proceedings - Plaintiff not raising objection in the consolidation proceedings - Subsequent suit by the plaintiff in respect of the same property - Held: the suit is barred u/s. 49 as also by res judicata and 0. D 2 r. 2 CPC - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - 0. r. 2 - Principle of res judicata. l.- The question for consideration before this court is whether jurisdiction of a civil court in respect of grant of relief for setting aside a gift deed in respect of agricultural E land, is barred in terms of s. 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The jurisdiction of the Civil Court, is-clearly F barred as it is evident that subject matter of both the suits is agricultural lands only. The Schedule appended to the said suit as also in averments made in the plaint do not suggest that the same contained any homestead or non- agricultural property. The order dated 17.7.1973 directing G abatement of the suit filed by the appellant has attained fiflality. Appellant did not question the correctness or otherwise of the said order. He also did not file any objection in the consolidation proceedings contending H 590 '!' --( MADAN MOHAN MISHRA V. 591 CHANRIKA PANDEY (DEAD) BY LRS. that the same involved non-agricultural lands. [Paras 11, A 12 and 19] [ 600-8; 595-F, G, H] . . Audhar a_nd Ors. v. Chandrapati and Ors. 200;3 (11) SCC 458; Narender Singh and Ors. v. Jai Bhagwan and Ors. 2005 (9) sec 157 - relied on. 2. Suit filed in 1994 covers the same property vvhich was the subject matter of Suit filed in 1969. As the suit filed in 1969 has abated by an order dated 17.7.1973, another suit by the appellant, therefore, would not only B be barred by res judicata but also under Order II Rule 2 CPC. Furthermore, appellant had not filed any objection C in the consolidation proceedings, which again go to show that it was accepted that the lands in question were agricultural lands. [Para 14] [596-G] 3. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court not only in respect 0 of the matters which are specifie.d u/s. 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings act, 1953. but also the matters which could and ought to have been the subject matter of the proceedings under the said Act is barred. [Para 16] [597-F] Gorakh Nath Dube v. Hari Narain Singh and Ors. 1973 (2) SCC 535; Prem Singh and Ors. v. Birbal and Ors. 2006 (5) SCC 353; Smt. Du/aria Devi v. Janardan Singh and Ors. AIR 1990 SC 1173 - referred to. Case Law Reference 1973 (2) sec 535 Referred to. Para 15 2006 (5) sec 353 Referred to. Para 15 AIR 1990 SC 1173 Referred to. Para 15 2003 (11) sec 458 Relied on. Para 19 2005 (9) sec 157 Relied on. Para 19 CIVIL APPELLATGE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1078 of 2009 E F G H 592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R. A From the final Judgement and Order dated 13.9.2006 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision Nos. 6473, 6588 & 6589 of 2005. Jayant Bhushan, Sarwa Mitter, Sanstosh Gupta and Amit B Gupta (for ~/s. Mitter & Mitter Co.), with him for the Appellant. Rakesh Dwivedi and V.C. Mahajan, Manoj Swarup, Akshat Goel, Rohit Sohgaura, D.S. Khurana, M. Choudhary, Pretika Dwivedi, Adarsh Upadhaya (for Kamal Mohan Gupta), Nikhil Nayyar and Sanjiv Nirwani (for Kishan Datta), with them for the c Respondent. The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 5.8. SINHA, J. D 1. Leave granted. 2. Whether jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in respect '- of grant of a relief for setting aside a deed of gift in terms of Section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short, 'the 1953 Act') is in question in this appeal. It arises out of E a judgment and order dated 26.5.2005 passed in CMWP No.1920 of 1999 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. 3. The basic fact of the matter is'not in dispute. F One Ram Baran Tewari was the owner of the property. He died on 12.7.1927 leaving behind two sons, Devki Nandan and Lalta Tewari as also a daughter Bish
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.