MAHANT DHANGIR AND ANOTHER versus MADAN MOHAN AND OTHERS

Citation: [1988] 1 S.C.R. 679 · Decided: 28-10-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.C. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

MAHANT DHANGIR AND ANOTHER 
v. 
MADAN MOHAN AND OTHERS 
OCTOBER 28, 1987 
A 
[B.C. RAY AND K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, JJ.) 
B 
--k 
Question regarding maintainability of cross-objection in appeal--
Order 41, rules 22 and 33 of Civil Procedure Code-Applicability 
thereof. 
-
There is a Math known as Juna Math in Bikaner. The first appel-
-, --l lant is the present Mahant of the Math and the second appellant is the C 
-presiding deity of the Math, both referred to collectively as 'the Math', 
-
herein. 
Previously, one Lalgiri Maharaj was the Mahant of the Math. He 
mismanaged the Math and disposed of its properties. On August 19, o 
1963, he gave on lease for 99 years land measuring 2211 sq. yards in 
favour of Madan Mohan, the respondent No. l. On March 22, 1968, he 
sold to Madan Mohan 446 sq. yards of land out of the land leased to 
him. Madan Mohan constructed shops on the land purchased and sold 
them to Jankidas and Mohan Lal, who are respondents Nos. 2 and 3_. 
Then Madan Mohan sold another piece of land purchased from Lalgirl 
E 
to the respondents Nos. 2 and 3. 
Later, the first appellant became the Mahant of the Math, and the 
Math filed a suit, challenging the alienations made by Lalgirl, and for a 
declaration that the said alienations were without authority and not 
binding on the Math and for possession of the property from the respon-
F 
_ ~ 
dents l to 3. The trial Court decreed the suit in part only, as it gavl' a 
- declaration that the lease deed dated August 19, 1963, was uull and 
void, but the relief regarding possession of the land demised was 
rejected. The suit for recovery of possession of the land sold by Lalgirl 
was also dismissed. 
G 
Against the judgment of the Trial Court, two appeals one by the 
Math amj the other, by Madan Mohan-were filed before the High 
'>""' Court. By a common judgment in the two appeals, a Single Judge of the 
High Court (i) allowed the appeal of the Math in part, giving a simple 
declaration that the sale of the land was void, bot declining to pass a 
decree for possession of the land sold, and (ii) allowed the appeal fl H 
679 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
680 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] 1 S.C.R. 
Madan Mohan, giving him complete relief, while holding that the suit 
as to the lease was barred by time. 
Against the judgment of the Single Judge, no appeal was filed 
either by the Math or by Madan Mohan. There was-only an appeal filed 
bY. respondents 2 and 3, who impleaded the Math as the first respondent 
and Madan Mohan, as the third respondent. The Math preferred cross-
objection. Madan Mohan did not do any thing. The Division Bench of 
High Court dismissed the appeal on the merits. It also dismissed the 
cross-objection on the ground of maintainability. Aggrieved by the dis-
missal of the cross-objection, the Math appealed to this Court for relief 
by special leave. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court, 
HELD: The Single Judge invalidated the sale of the property to 
Madan Mohan, while denying a decree for possession. The appellants 
before the Division Bench wanted to get rid of the finding as to the 
invalidity of the sale. The Math wanted to recover possession of the 
property from the appellants before the Division Bench, and Madan 
Mohan. The Math instead of filing an a11peal for that relief, could as 
well tile the cross-objection. That is clear from the provisions of R. 22 of 
0.41, C.P.C. The High Court was clearly in error in holding to the 
contrary. [684G-H] 
The next question for consideration was whether the cross-
objection was maintainable against Madan Mohan, a co-respondent, 
and if not, whether the Court could call into aid R. 33, 0.41 C.P.C. 
-
Generally, the cross-objection could be urged against the appellant. It is 
only by way of exception to this general rule that one respondent may 
F 
urge objection as against the other respondent. The type of such excep-
, 
tional cases are very much limited-when an appeal cannot be effec- )-
lively disposed of without opening the matter as between the respon-
dents inter se, or when there is a case where the objections are common 
as against the appellants and the co-respondent. This law has been laid 
down by this Court in Panna Lal v. State of Bombay, [1964) I SCR 980 
G 
at 991. This view has been accepted as a guide for more than two 
decades. No attempt should be made to unsettle the law unless there is a 
compelling reason. The Court does not find any such compelbng reason 
in the case. [685A, H; 686A-B; 687 A-Bl

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.