LexS. AMARJIT SINGH KALRA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. versus SMT. PRAMOD GUPTA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
S. AMARJIT SINGH KALRA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.
B
V.
SMT. PRAMOD GUPTA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.
DECEMBER I 7, 2002
[G.B. PATTANAIK, CJ., M.B. SHAH, DORAISWAMY RAJU,
S.N. VARIAVA AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-0rder 22-Death of some of the several
C claimants in a joint appeal against a decree-Dismissal of the appeal in toto
even in respect of surviving appellants on the ground of abatement-Held,
whenever p{aintiffs/appellantslpetitioners found to have distinct, separate and
independent rights of their own and for purpose of convenience or otherwise
joined together in a single litigation, decree passed thereon would not be
inseparable, but in substance is a mere combination of several decrees-In
D order to determine as to whether a decree is joint and inseverable or it is joint
and severable for the purpose of abatement or dismissal of the entire appeal
as not properly constituted or rendered incompetent for further proceeding, it
is to be seen whether the decree vis-a-vis the remaining parties would suffer
the vice of contradictory or inconsistent decrees-A decree can be said to be
E contradictory or inconsistent with another decree only when the two decrees
are incapable of enforcement or are mutually self destructive or the enforcement
of one would negate the enforcement of another-land Acquisition Act, 1894-
Sections 4,6,11,18,30 and 31.
F
law of Procedure:
Purpose of-Field, such laws are meant to regulate effectively, assist
and aid the object of doing substantial and real justice and not to foreclose
an adjudication even on merits of substantial rights-Provisions contained in
Order 22 C.P.C not to be construed as a rigid matter of principle, but as a
G flexible tool of convenience in the administration of justice-Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908-0rder 22.
In land acquisition proceedings, there arose disputes regarding the
claims for compensation among the claimants i.e. proprietors, respondent
No. 27-Bhumidhar, Gaon Sabha and Union of India. Though claims made
H by claimants were for their respective shares, Land Acquisition Collector,·
350
S. AMARJIT SINGH KALRA v. PRAMOD GUPTA
351
granted lump sum compensation, and made reference under Sections 30 A
and 31(2) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the Court of District Judge
for apportionment of the compensation in view of the disputed nature of
competing claims.
District Judge awarded the compensation to the bhumidhar and
transferors from her to the exclusion of the proprietors, Gaon Sabha and B
Union of India. Against the award, 63 proprietors jointly filed one appeal
and IO proprietors filed another appeal before High Court. However 37
of the claimants did not file any appeal and they were also not made party
in the appeals of other claimants. During pendency of the appeals, five of
the 63 appellants died. High Court dismissed the appeal filed by 63 C
claimants including 58 surviving claimants, in toto as having abated and
the appeal filed by IO claimants were dismissed holding that they were
not properly constituted and incompetent for the reason that connected
appeals having abated, other appeals involving questions of fact and law
could not be proceeded with, resulting in conflicting, inconsistent and
contradictory decrees. Applications filed by legal representatives of the D
deceased for bringing them on record were also dismissed as barred by
limitation.
In appeal to this Court, appellants contended that dismissal of all
the appeals in toto, merely because 5 of the appellants died, was not
justified because even in absence of those legal representatives the claims E
of other 58 appellants survived since each one of them was seeking relief
on the basis of his own independent cause of action.
Respondents contended that dismissal of all the appeals in toto was
justified since the disputes centered around one lump sum compensation F
in respect of undivided and common land and since the litigation was on
the same nature of title, the decree passed would be joint and indivisible.
Allowing the appeals and remitting the case to High Court for
disposal, this Court
HELD: 1.1. Wherever the plaintiffs or appellants or petitioners are
found to have distinct, separate and independent rights of their own and
for purpose of convenience or otherwise, joined together in a single
litigation to vindicate their rights, the decree passed by the Court thereon
is to be viewed in substanExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.