LexRAMJI GUPTA & ANR. versus GOPI KRISHAN AGRAWAL (D) & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A 8 [2013] 5 S.C.R. 398 RAMJI GUPTA & ANR. v. GOPI KRISHAN AGRAWAL (D) & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 629 of 2004 etc.) APRIL 11, 2013 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] Suit - Suit by landlord against tenants alleging default in C payment of rent - Tenants claiming to be owners of the property on the strength of sale deed executed by the vendor (mother of the landlord) - Small Causes Court decreed the suit, relying on a judgment passed in 1958 (whereby vendor (a Hindu female) was held to be life estate holder in the D property). and held that by virtue of the judgment, the son of the vendor (landlord) acquired the property - Judgment confirmed by District Judge and High Court - On appeal, held: Courts below rightly decreed the suit. E Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 - s. 23 - Adjudication of issue of title - By Small Causes Court - Held: Small Causes Court cannot adjudicate upon issue of title - Such question if decided incidentally by Small Causes Court, would not operate as res-judicata in a subsequent suit based on title - In the instant case, trial court rightly refused to go F into such issue. 'J' after the death of her husband, was given life interest in the property in question by her father-in-law through a 'Will'. Respondent No.1 who claimed to be the G adopted son of 'J', filed a suit against 'J', wherein the Court by judgment dated 23.4.1958 held that 'J' was only a life estate holder of the property in question therein (including the property in question in the present case). The property in question was under tenancy of father of H 398 RAMJI GUPTA & ANR. v. GOPI KRISHAN AGRAWAL 399 (D) & ORS. the appellants. 'J' sold the property to the mother of the A appellants in 1974. Appellants inherited the tenancy after death of their father and continued to pay the rent to the vendee i.e. their mother. Respondent No.1 filed a suit alleging that the 8 appellants had defaulted in payment of rent. During pendency of the suit, respondent No.1 sold the property to respondent No.2. Appellants contested the suit claiming to be owner of the property. Small Causes Court decreed the suit holding that respondent No.1 acquired the property by virtue of judgment dated 23.4.1958 and C landlord-tenant relationship could be deemed to have been created between the parties. The order was further confirmed by District Judge as well as High Court. In appeal to this Court, the appellants contended that D the courts erred in adjudicating upon the issue of title because such issue can be decided only by civil court and not small Causes Court; and that judgment dated 23.4.1958 could not be given effect to, in view of provisions of s.14(2) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. E Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. A question regarding title in a small cause suit, may be regarded as incidental only to the substantial issue in the suit, and therefore, when a finding as regards F title to immovable property is rendered by a Small Causes Court, res judicata cannot be pleaded as a bar in the subsequent regular suit, for the determination or enforcement of any right or interest in the immovable property. A question of title could also be decided upon G incidentally, and that any finding recorded by a Judge, . Small Causes Court in this behalf, could not operate as res judicata in a suit based on title. (Para 7] [407-F-H; 408-A] Dhulabai etc. v. State of M.P. and Anr. AIR 1969 SC 78: H 400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 5 S.C.R. A 1968 SCR 662; Smt. Gangabai wlo Rambilas Gilda v. Smt. Chhabubai wlo Pukharajji Gandhi (1982) 1 SCC 4: 1982 (1) SCR 1176; Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Mis. India Automobiles and Co. and Ors. AIR 1991 SC 884: 1990 (3) SCR 545; Rameshwar Dayal v. Banda (Dead) through His 8 L.Rs. and Anr. (1993) 1 sec 531: 1993 (1) SCR 198 - relied on. 2. In view of Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, it is evident that the Small Causes Court cannot adjudicate upon the issue of title. In the instant C case therefore, the trial court has rightly refused to go into such issue, and neither can any fault be found with the findings recorded by the courts below in this regard. Furthermore, as it is an admitted fact that defendant Nos.1 and 2 were tenants of the original plaintiffs, the question D of title could not be adjudicated at the behest of the appellants under any circumstance. [Pa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.