MANTI DEVI & ANR. versus KISHUN SAH @ KISHUN DEO SAO & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 2 S.C.R. 935 · Decided: 23-03-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 2 S.C.R. 935 
MANTI DEVI & ANR. 
v. 
KISHUN SAH @ KISHUN DEO SAO & ORS. 
(Civil A,ppeal No. 2014 of2009) 
MARCH 23, 2017 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.) 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- ss. 99 and 141 -Applicability 
of s. 99 to revision, in view of s.141 - Eviction suit by appe/lant-
plaintiff decreed by trial court - Reversed by High Court in revision 
on account of non-joinderlmisjoinder of parties - Held: U/s. 99, 
CPC no decree can be reversed or substantially varied in appeal 
on account of any misjoinder or 1lon-joinder of parties not affecting 
merits of the case - By virtue of s.141, procedure under the CPC in 
regard to suit shall be followed as far as it can be made applicable 
to proceedings in any Court of Civil jurisdiction - Therefore, what 
is provided u/s.99 in respect of appeal would apply to revision as 
well - Judglnent of High Court passed in revision, setting l!side the 
decree of trial court on ground of misjoinder or non-joinder .of 
parties, not affecting the merits of the case, is set aside -
Respondents/tenants granted time to surrender vacant and peaceful 
possession, subject to filing of usual undertaking within six weeks. 
Allowing the appeal, the Conrt 
HELD: Section 99, CPC is crystal clear. No decree can be 
reversed or substantially varied in appeal on account of misjoinder 
or non-joinder of parties. Under Section 141 of the CPC, 
procedure under the Code in regard to suit shall be followed as 
far as it can be made applicable to proceedings in any Court of 
Civil jurisdiction. Therefore, what is provided under Section 99 
of the CPC in respect of appeal would apply to revision as well. 
[Para 5) [938-B-C) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2014 
of2009. 
From the Judgment and Or.derdated 08.09,2006 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Patna in Civil Revision No. 115 of2006. 
935 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
936 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Nagendra Rai, Sr. Adv .. Ms. Prerna Singh, T. Mahipal, Advs. for 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
the Appellants. 
Gaurav Agrawal, Adv. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KURIAN, J. I. The appellants filed a suit before the Munsif 
Court, Patna City forejectment of two katras on the ground of personal 
need. The appellants are mother and son. The suit was decre'!d on 
the following terms:-
"27. Issue No.II:- Have the plaintiff got valid cause of action for 
the suit. 
. 
The plaintiffs have sought for eviction of the defendants from 
the suit katras on the ground of their personal necessity. The 
plaintiffs have purchased the suit katra from the original landlord 
of the defendant no. I. The defendant no. I denied to accept the 
plaintiff as his landlord and refused to pay the monthly rent to the 
plaintiffs. The defendant No. I refused to pay rent to the plaintiffs 
on the ground that the plaintiffs were not landlord of the suit katra. 
The defendant no. 1 also denied the relationship of tenant and 
landlord with the plaintiffs. It has been concluded above that the 
plaintiffs being the purchaser of the suit property stepped into the 
shoes of their vendors and by the fiction of law they become the 
landlord. Jn this view of the matter l find that the plaintiffs have 
got valid cause of action for the suit. Jn this way, Jssue NO. II is 
also decided in favour of the plaintiffs . 
. 28. Jssue No. 7:-Are the plaintiffs entitled to a decree for eviction 
as sought for or to any other relief or reliefs. 
It has been concluded above that the plaintiffs require the suit 
katras for their personal necessity and as such they are entitled to 
get the suit katras vacated by the tenants. It has also been 
concluded that the plaintiffs have purchased the suit katras from 
the real owners and they become the landlord or the aforesaid 
katra. In view of the above conclusion l also come to the conclusion 
that the plaintiff is entitled to get eviction decree against the. 
defendants. In the facts and circumstances of the case the plaintiffs 
are also entitled to the cost of the suit. 
MANTI DEV! & ANR. v. KISHUN SAH @ KISHUN DEO SAO 
937 
& ORS. [KURIAN, J.) 
29. In view of the above conclusion I find and hold that the 
A 
defendants are liable to be evicted from the suit katras. 
Accordingly, the defendants are directed to vacate the suit katras 
within two months from the date of this order and to hand over 
the vacant possession thereof failing which the plaintiff shall be 
entitled to vacant possessio

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