R. RATHINAVEL CHETTIAR AND ANOTHER versus V. SIVARAMAN AND OTHERS

Citation: [1999] 2 S.C.R. 313 · Decided: 31-03-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

R. RA THINA VEL CHETTIAR AND ANOTHER 
A 
v. 
V. SIVARAMAN AND OTHERS 
MARCH 31, 1999 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure 1908, Order XXlll Rule 1, I-A-Suit by plaintiff 
for declaration of title to property and possession decreed-Plaintiff selling 
property to appellants soon thereafter-During pendency of appeal by 
defendant, plaintiff_ applying for dismissal of suit as not pressed stating he C 
had compromised the dispute with defendant-High Court allowing 
application-Held, Plaintiff cannot be allowed to withdraw decreed suit at 
the stage of appeal so as to take away rights vested in parties. 
VS, plaintiff-respondent No. 1, filed a suit against S, widow of his 
brother, inter alia, for declaration of title to and possession of the suit D 
property. The suit was decreed by the trial court. S filed an appeal in the 
High Court. The appellants, who purchased the suit property from VS three 
days after the suit was decreed, got themselves impleaded in the appeal as 
respondents. 
VS filed an application in the High Court for dismissing the suit as E 
not pressed as he had compromised the dispute with S. This application was 
allowed by the High Court. Aggrieved, the appellants approached this court. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : i. t. Where a decree passed by the trial court is challenged in 
appeal, it would not be open to the plaintiff, at that stage, to withdraw the suit F 
so as to destroy that decree. The rights which have come to be vested in 
parties to the suit under the decree cannot be taken away by withdrawal of 
suit at that stage unless very strong reasons are shown that the withdrawal 
would not affect or prejudke anybody's vested rights. The judgment of the 
High Court in which a contrary view has been expressed cannot be sustained. G 
[321-A-B) 
1.2. Having purchased the property from the plaintiff after a declaration 
was given in his favour, a valuable right came to be vested in the appellants 
which could not be taken away by the plaintiff by withdrawal of the suit 
unconditionally as the withdrawal was positively to have the effect of destroying H 
313 
314 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999] 2 S.C.R. 
A the decree already passed in favour of the plaintiff. (321-F-G] 
B 
1.3. The appellants having already been impleaded as respondents in 
the appeal, had a right to be heard in the matter of withdrawal of suit. The 
appeal would now be remanded and decided on merits by the High Court. 
(322-A-B] 
_.:~ . i 
Hulas Rai Baij Nath v. K.P. Bass & Co., [1967) 3 SCR 886; Tukaram 
Mahadu Tande! v. Ramchandra Mahadu Tande/, AIR (1925) Born 425; Dharma 
Raja v. K.M Pethur Raja, AIR (1924) Mad 79; Kedar Nath v. Chandra Kiran 
AIR (1962) All 263; Vidhyadhar Dube v. Har Charan, AIR (1971) All 41; 
Kanhaiya v. Mst. Dhaneshwari, AIR (1973) All 212; Thakur Balaram Singh 
C v. K. Achuta Rao, (1977) 2 A.P.L.J. 111; Ram Dhan v. Jagat Prasad Sethi, AIR 
(1982) Raj 235; Sh. Guru Maharaj Anahdpur Ashram Trust Guna v. Chander 
Prakash, (1986) 1 89 Punjab Law Reporter 319 and Jutha Ram v. Purni Devi 
/LR, (1970) 1 Allahabad 472, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1821-22 
D of 1999. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.10.87 of the Madras High 
Court in A. No. 149/84 and C.M.P. No. 15941of1987. 
K. Parasaran, V. Balaji and A.T.M. Sampath for the Appellants. 
S. Balakrishnan, Vipin, P.B. Suresh and Subramanium Prasad for 
the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J. V. Sivaraman (plaintiff-respondent No.1) filed 
F a suit against Shakunthala, widow of his brother, for declaration of title to the 
suit property and for a direction to the defendants, namely, Shakunthala and 
Vinayagam, to put him in possession of that property and to pay the arrears 
of rent amounting to Rs. 18,000 together with further mesne profits. The suit 
was decreed by the trial court on 5th September, 1983 against which Shakunthala 
G filed an appeal in the High Court and during the pendency of the appeal in 
that Court, the present appellants were impleaded as respondents by order 
dated 20.3.1985 passed in C.M.P. No. 5008 of 1984. It was indicated in that 
application that three days after the decree was passed by the trial court, 
plaintiff (respondent No. l) sold the suit properties to the appellants and since 
the properties in suit had been assigned to them, they had to be impleaded 
H a:; respondents as required by Order 22 Rule 10 C.P.C.

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