LexMST. GULAB BAI versus MANPHOOL BAI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
{
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
The concept of joint tenancy known to Ehglish
law .with the right of survivorship is unknown to
Hindu law except in regard to cases specially re-
cognized by it. In the present case, the uncle and
the two nephews did not belong to the same
branch. The acquisitions made by them jointly
could not be impressed with the incidents of joint
family property. They can only be co-sharers or
co-tenants, with the result that their properties
passed by inheritance and not by survivorship.
In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed
with costs.
Appeal dismiss~d.
MST. GULAB BAI
v .
. MANPHOOL BAI
(B. P. SINHA, C. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADJLl.R and
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.)
Res Judicata-'Suit', Meaning of-If can denote part
of a suit or an issue in it-Code of
Oi.~l Procedure, 1908
(Act V of 1908), s. 11.
·
The respondent had sued the appellant 2 on a rent note
in the Munsiff's court for recovery of Rs. 700/- as arrears of
rent and' ejectment. That suit was dismissed on the prelimi-
nary objection of defect of party as appellant 1, a co· lessor
in the rent note, had not been made a party. The respondent
then brought the present suit in the Civil Judge's court for
recovery of Rs. 2400 as arrears of rent from and for ejectment
of appellant 2, maki.ng appellant 1 a pro-forma defendant in
the suit. The appellant 2 pleaded that the su:t was barred
by res judicata and could not be decreed since appellant l
had not joined 'the responclenc in
the
clai1n.
The High
Court, iri finally decreeing the suit in second app~al, .held·
that it was not barred by res judicata since the Munsiff had
not the pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit and that
appellant I on a true construction of the. rent note, .was not a
a co-lessor with the respondent. It was urged on behalf of
the appellants in this Court that the word 'suit' in s. 11 of
the Code of Civil Procedure should be liberally, and not
literally, construed so as to include part of the suit or an issue
;961
Bluizwan D'J14l
v •
• \f.st. '.Beo# Der1i
Subia 11., J.
1P61
S1;temher a.
Mst. Guiab Bai
v.
II atiflhoot Bai
--
484
SUl'REi\IE COURT REPORTS
[1962]
raised in the suit and that since the MunsiiT \vj10 had tried the
previous suit was competent to try that part of the subsequent
suit \ ... ·h1ch forn1P.d the relevant issue in the earlier suit the
present suit \\·as barred by res judica/a.
'
Heid, that the High Court was right in hold in~ that
tLe present suit was not barred by r'!.s judicata.
·-
The \\·ord 'suit' occurring in s. 11 of the Code of Civil
Proccdt1rc mu~c be literally, and not liberally, construed so as
to mean the entire suit and not a part of it or an issue arising
in ic.
The le,;islative history of that ;ection clearly shows
that thrrc is no scope fur any liberal construction of that \\'Ord.
Durliess of King•lon's case, 2 Smith Lead.
Cas. 13th
Ed. 644, .l!i•ir Rag!1obardial '" Rajah /:,'/,eQ Baksi. Singh, ( 1882)
LR. 9 I.A. 197
and Gokul ManJar '" l'udmanund Singh,
(1902) J.L.R. 29 Cal. 707, discussed.
Mussamut Bdun '" MusMmut
Bahun, 8 W.R. 175,
liam Dayal \'.Janlcida.s, (1900) I.LR. 24 Born. 45G, Shibo Raul
'" Baban Raul, (l!J08) 1.L.R. 35 Cal. 353, referred to.
Sh,ikh .Haqaood Ali v. !I. llunter, A.l.R. 19{3 Oudh.
338, considered.
C1nL APPELLATE JomsDICTIO:\ : Civil Appeal
No. 201/HJ50.
Appeal from tho judgment and decree dated
January 2, 1952, of tho Rajasthan High Court in
D. R. Civil Second Appeal No. 459 of 1949.
S. N. A.ndlcy, Rameshu-ar Nath and P.L. Vohra,
for the appellants Nos. 2 and 3.
N. C. Cltatte1jee and .!If ohan Belwri ],al, for
respondent.
1961. September 5. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
GAJENDRAGAllKAn, J.-This appeal by a certi-
ficate given by the Raja;; than High Con rt arises fron~
the suit filed by the respondent. l\Ist. ~fanphool Bat
against appellant 2 Lacln Ram for the recovery
of the arrears of rent and for eojectment.
To this
Ruit the respondent joined appellant l lier mother-
in-law Guiab Bai as a proforma defendant. 'fhe
property in question is a shop situated in the Johri
Bazar at Jaipur. This property originally belonged
to Chhogalal, ancl after him it devolved on his
f.
.
"'
l
'·
•
-
3 S.C.R.
SUPREMECOURT REPORTS
48fi
adopted son.Phool Chand. The case for the respon·
dent is that her husband Lal Chand had been adopt·
ed by appellant 1 after the death of her husband
Phool Chand. Appellant 2 had exExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.