LexRAVEESH CHAND JAIN versus RAJ RANI JAIN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2015) 1 S.C.R. 1096 RAVEESH CHAND JAIN v. RAJ RANI JAIN (Civil appeal no. 1822 of 2015} FEBRUARY 12, 2015 [M.Y. EQBAL AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Or.XII r. 6 - Suit for recovery of possession and for damages against appellant C who was respondent-plaintiffs son alleging that suit property was purchased by plaintiff from her own funds and she was absolute owner - Appellant-defendant opposed the suit contending that the suit property was a HUF property having been purchased in the name of the respondent using the o funds of his grandfather, father and himself - Respondent filed application u!Or.Xll r.6 stating that a suit for partition filed by appellant earlier on the same ground that suit property was HUF was dismissed and same amounted to unequivocal admission by the appellant that the respondent was entitled E to possession - Trial court dismissed' the application - High Court held that the suit for partition having been dismissed, the same will operate as res judicata and decreed the suit - Held: High Court was correct in decreeing the suit so far as recovery of possession was concerned in view of question of F ownership having been already decided in earlier suit - The second question with regard to recovery of Rs. 5,55,0001- and future damages admittedly was not decided either in the earlier suit or in this suit - In that view of the matter, decreeing the entire suit on the basis of ownership of the respondent already decided in the earlier suit, the decree for recovery of G damages ought not to have been passed by the High Court - However, while admitting the SLP the court had directed appellant to deposit Rs. 5 lacs and notice was issued only confining to the question as to whether the decree passed u/ H 1096 RAVEESH CHAND JAIN v. RAJ RANI JAIN 1097 Or. XII r. 6 was justified - Hence matter need not be remanded A back to trial court for deciding the issue as to the quantum of damages- The amount of Rs. 5 lacs held to be just and proper. Dismissing the appeal, the Court B HELD: 1. The High Court not only decreed the suit for possession but also directed the plaintiff I respondent to file an affidavit .giving details of the cost of litigation since the appeal was allowed with cost. There is no dispute that Order XII Rule 6 confers wide discretion on C the Court to pass judgment either at the stage of the suit on the basis of admission of the facts made in the pleadings or otherwise, but the Court shall later on decide the other questions which arise for consideration in the Suit.It is equally well settled that the provision of D Order XII Rule 6 of the Code is not a mandatory provision rather discretionary. While exercising power of passing judgment on admission made in the pleading or otherwise, the Court must keep the matter pending for adjudication so far as other issues are concerned. [Paras E 14, 15 and 16] [1105-B-E] 2. The view taken by the High Court was correct having regard to the question of ownership already decided in the earlier suit filed by the defendant/ appellant. The said issue need not have to be decided afresh and hence on the basis of the finding of ownership decided in favour of the plaintiff/respondent, the suit has F to be decreed so far as the recovery of possession is concerned.So far as the second question with regard to the entitlement of the plaintiff/respondent to claim a G decree for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,55,000/- and future damages @ Rs.15,000/- per month was concerned, admittedly this question was not decided either in the earlier suit or in this suit. In that view of the matter, decreeing the entire suit on the basis of ownership of the H 1098 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 1 S.C.R. A plaintiff/respondent already decided in the earlier suit, the decree for recovery of damages ought not to have been passed by the High Court. However, in the instant case, since at the time of admission of this Special Leave Petition, the orde~ was passed that in the event the B appellant deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in the account of his mother-Respondent, notice was issued only confining to the question as to whether the decree passed under the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 CPC was justified. In compliance of the said order, the appellant c had already deposited the said amount. Hence, taking into consideration the relationship of the appellant and the respond
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.