LexMADINA BEGUM & ANR. versus SHIV MURTI PRASAD PANDEY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H [2016) 5 S.C.R. 92 MADINA BEGUM & ANR. v. SHIV MURTI PRASAD PANDEY & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 6687 of2016) AUGUST I, 2016 [MADAN B. LOKUR AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.] Limitation Act, 1963: Schedule 1, Article 54 - Suit for specific performance - Challenged on the ground of limitation - Held: The agreement between the parties did not specify a calender date as the fixed date for performance of the agreement - Hence, the limitation of three years would begin when the plaintiff has notice that the defendant has refitsed the performance of agreement - In the instant case, High Court fell in error ii1 ignoring the absence of a specified date for the performance of the agreement and in setting aside the decree passed by trial court. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: s.96 - First appeal - Scope of - Held: Sitting as a court of first appeal it is the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and evidence led by the parties before recording its findings - In the present appeal, High Court only considered the issue of limitation and did not consider the other issues in the appeal - This was impermissible - Matter remitted to High Court to decide on merits. Remanding the matter back to High Court, the Court HE:D: It is a little unfortunate that the parties have to undergo another round of litigation which could easily have been avoided if the settled legal principles laid down by this Court from time to time were followed in regard to the requirements of Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. [Para 26][100-D-E] Ahmadsahab Abdul Mulla (2) (Dead) v. Bibijan and Ors. 2009 (5) SCR 476 : (2009) 5 SCC 462 - followed. Rathnavathi and Another v. Kavita Ganashamdas (2015) 5 sec 223 - relied on. Vinod Kumar v. Gangadhar 2014 (10) SCR 1050 92 MADINA BEGUM & ANR. v. SHIV MURTI PRASAD PANDEY & ORS. (2015) 1 SCC 391; Madhukar v. Sangram 2001 (3) SCR 138 : (2001) 4 sec 756 - referred to. Case Law Reference 2009 (5) SCR 476 followed Para 18 (2015) 5 sec 223 relied on Para 20 2014 (10) SCR 1050 referred to Para24 2001 (3) SCR 138 referred to Para24 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6687 of2016. From the Judgment and Order dated 16.08.2013 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in First Appeal No. 175 of2011. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv., Manish Pitale, Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Ms. Deeplaxmi S. Matwankar, Chander Shekhar Ashri, Advs. for the Appellants. Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Adv., Navin Prakash, Tarun Gulia, Anantha Narayana M. G., Ms. Disha Yaish, Akshat Shrivastava, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MADAN B. LOKUR, J. I. The two questions for our consideration are whether the suit filed by the appellant Madina Begum was barred by limitation in terms of the first part of Article 54 of Schedule I of the Limitation Act, 1963 and whether the High Court ought to have decided the first appeal filed by Madina Begum not only on the preliminary issue of limitation but also on all other issues. As far as the first question is concerned our answer is in the negative and as far as the second question is concerned, in our opinion, the High Court ought to have considered all the issues in the first appeal rather than only the preliminary issue oflimitation. 2. The land in dispute in this appeal is 1.63 acres ofagricultural land bearing khasra nos. 438, 439, 440 and 456 (total area being 2.13 acres) in Patwari Halka No. 26 Gram Amkhera, Tehsil and District Jabalpur. 3. There was a dispute about the title of the entire aforesaid 93 A B c D E F G H 94 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 5 S.C.R. land and to resolve that dispute, Guiab Bai claiming to be the owner and in possession of the entire land, filed Suit No. 479A of 1994 in the Court of the Additional District Judge in Jabalpur. The defendants in the suit were Amar Singh and Jaswant Singh. The prayer made by Guiab Bai in her plaint was for a declaration with regard to her title and possession. She also prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants Amar Singh and Jaswant Singh from interfering with her possession. 4. On 2na August, 2001 the suit was decreed in favour of Guiab Bai and thereafter on 3'd September, 200 I she entered into an agreement to sell 1.63 acres of agricultural land being the disputed property to Madina Begum. The consideration for the sale was Rs. 4,89,000/- out of which an advance
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.