RAMESH CHAND ARDAWATIYA versus ANIL PANJWANI

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 1149 · Decided: 05-05-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

RAMESH CHAND ARDAWATIYA 
A 
v. 
ANIL PANJWANI 
MAY 5, 2003 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
Suit for declaration of title, possession from trespasser and mandatory 
injunction-Plaintiff claiming title on the strength of agreement to sale- C 
Possession of plaintiff on the land from the date of agreement proved-Suit 
decreed and confirmed by First Appellate Court and High Court, declaring 
plaintiff as owner of the suit land-On appeal, held: Plaintiff is not owner of 
the suit land, but has only possessory title-Contract of sale does not confer 
title in immovable property-But if person enters into possession under a D 
contract with consent of the titlP- holder, he is entitled to protect his possession 
from everyone except the person who has heller title than him or the vendee-
Trespasser not having title belier than that of the plaintiff, was not entitled to 
dispossess the plaintiff-Transfer of Property Act, 
1882-5~A and 54-
limitation Act, 1963-Article 64-Specific Relief Act, 1963-Section 6. 
Order VIII Rules /, 2, 6, 6A, 6B, 6C, 8 and 9 (as amended by Amendment 
Act I 04 of 1976)-Counter-claim-Right to file-Wrillen statement not filed-
Held: Pleading by W£D' of counter-claim runs with the right of filing wrillen 
statement-Counter-claim must find its place in the writlen statement-Once 
E 
the right to file writ/en statement is lost or the limitation period for defence F 
expires, neither written statement can be flied nor counter-claim can be allowed 
to be raised-However, Court has discretion to permit a written statement 
being filed belatedly. 
Civil Court-Jurisdiction-When alternative forum available-Held: 
Despite alternative forum having exclusive jurisdiction to try particular cases, G 
Civil Court can entertain a civil suit of that class on availability of a new 
ground-Question of jurisdiction is to be determined primarily on the averments 
made in the plaint-Exclusion of Civil Court 'sjurisdiction in such cases should 
be raised at the earliest -In the present case, the suit being of the nature of 
declaration, possession and injunction, dispute not being u/s 75(/)(a) to (e) 
1149 
H 
1150 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2003] 3 S.C.R. 
A 75(2)(a) to (c) a/Co-operative Societies Act, not excludedfrom the jurisdiction 
of civil Court-Hence, suit not bad for jurisdictional incompetence-Rajasthan 
Co-operative Societies Act, 1965-Section 75(/)(a) to (e) and 2(a) to (c). 
Evidence-Nature of-In ex-parte proceeding-Held: In such 
proceedings, merely due to absence of defendant, Court shall not admit legally 
B inadmissible evidence nor permit decision being influenced by irrelevant or 
inadmissible evidl!nce. 
The suit property which was a vacant land _was allotted to 'S' by a 
Co-operative Society by allotment letter dated 26.6.1980. Plaintiff-
C respondent had entered into an agreement dated 11.12.1985 for purchase 
of the suit property. On the basis of the agreement he entered into the 
possession of the property and constructed a boundary wall. Plaintiff-
respondent found a hutment being raised on the suit land. On enquiry he 
found that it was being done at the behest of defendant-petitioner. Plaintiff 
filed suit for declaration of his title as owner of the land, for restoration of 
D possession from the trespasser-defendant, for mandatory injunction for 
removal of the construction raised by the trespasser and for permanent 
. prohibitory injunction from raising any further construction. Commissioner 
appointed to visit the suit property submitted his report. Despite notice 
defendant did not file any written statement. Thereafter matter was 
adjourned 15 times and yet no written statement or reply was filed. Another 
E Commissioner was appointed who inspected the site in the presence of both 
the parties. He had stated in his report that the plot had a temporary 
kitchen instead of a hut, and two newly constructed small rooms and a 
platform had come up. Correctness of this report was not challenged by 
the defendant at any stage of proceedings. Again the case was adjourned 
F on 29 occasions and no written statement was filed. On a date of hearing 
when defendant and his counsel absented from the Court, the case 
proceeded ex-parte. On the date of plaintiff's ex-pa rte evidence, defendant 
filed an application seeking the setting aside of ex-pa rte proceedings and 
the same was dismissed. After ex-parte proceedings trial court reserved 
G 
the judgment. In the mea

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