SAROJ ANAND & ORS. versus PRAHLAD RAI ANAND & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 3 S.C.R. 428 · Decided: 25-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 3 S.C.R. 428 
A 
SAROJ ANAND & ORS. 
v. 
PRAHLAD RAI ANAND & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1185 of 2009) 
B 
FEBRUARY 25, 2009 
[S.8. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
Practice and procedure - Concession by counsel -
Binding effect of - Held: Counsel can make concession on 
c question of law as also on facts which would be binding on 
the parties - Decree can be passed on the basis of such 
concession of parties in terms of 0. XX/I, r. 6 CPC - On facts 
preliminary decree was passed on basis of statement made 
by counsel - Parties were present in the court when order was 
D passed and could instruct their counsel - Subsequently, 
parties acted upon it- Thus, they cannot take a contrary stand 
afterwards - It was for them to spell out the purported 
misunderstanding between them and counsel - Code of Civil 
Procedure, 1908- 0. XX/I, r. 6. 
E 
The question which arose for consideration in this 
appeal was whether counsel could have made 
concession on behalf of the parties and what was the 
effect of the statement made by a counsel. 
F 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. A counsel can make not only concession 
. ' 
on a question of law but also on facts which would be 
binding on the parties. A decree can be passed on the 
basis of such concession of the parties in terms of Or 
G XXll, r. 6 CPC. [Para 15) [440-D] 
2.1. In the instant case, different stands taken by the 
appellant at different point of time is pointer to the conduct 
of the appellant. The records of the proceedings clearly 
show that the first Order dated 14.10.1999 was passed in 
H 
428 
SAROJ ANAND & ORS. v. PRAHLAD RAI ANAND & 
429 
ORS . 
. -.1¥, 
presence of all the defendants. K represented all the 
A 
defendants. If that be so, it was not unusual that in 
presence of their parents, all the children accepted that the 
plaintiff has also a share in all the properties in the suit. SD 
died in December 2003. Appellant in his application filed 
in November 2002 categorically admitted that K was 
B 
engaged as a counsel. If any is understanding occurred 
by and between him and the defendants as regards the 
instructions given to him, there was no reason as to why 
an application for rectification thereof could not be filed 
immediately thereafter. Instructions to that effect could c 
have been given by AN and his wife also during their life 
time. It is difficult to accept that K would make appearance 
on behalf of the defendants without any authority. Again 
if that was so, the parties who had been appearing before 
.. 
the courts should not have allowed him to represent them. D 
,J-
It is unfortunate that with a view to wriggle out of the 
admission, appellant went to the extent of maligning a 
counsel who happens to be the son-in-law of the first 
respondent. [Para 14] [438-H; 439-A-B] 
2.2. The parties were present in court on 14.10.1999. 
E 
Thus, they could instruct their counsel. As on the basis 
of the statements made by a counsel for all intent and 
' 
purport, a preliminary decree was passed and the parties 
' 
thereafter had been exploring the possibilities of 
partitioning the property by metes and bounds and/or 
F 
taking recourse to sale thereof there cannot be any doubt 
whatsoever that they had knowledge of the said order 
dated 14.10.1999. The parties acted upon it. Therefore, it 
is too late in the day to allow the parties to take a stand 
contra. Having regard to the fact that they were present G 
in court as also having full knowledge about the statement 
made by their counsel, it was for them to clearly spell out 
what could be the purported misunderstanding between 
them and the counsel. In a suit for partition, the principal 
question which was required to be gone into was as to 
H 
430 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 3 S.C.R. 
A whether the properties were joint properties or self-
,.., 
acquirnd properties. There were three items of the 
property in suit. To say now that the instruction was 
confined only to one of the properties-1/13, First Floor, 
Double Storey, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi cannot be 
B accepted. [Para 15] [439-F-H; 440-A-C] 
Jamilabai Abdul Kadar vs. Shankar/a/ Gulabchand and 
Ors. AIR 1975 SC 220; Pushpa Devi Bhagat v. Rajinder 
" 
Singh (2006) 5 SCC 566 and BSNL and Ors. v. Subash 
c 
Chandra Kanchan and Anr. (2006) 8 SCC 279, relied on. 
Case Law References: 
AIR 1975 SC 2202 
Relied on. 
Para 15 
(2006) 5 sec 566 
Relied on. 
Para 15 
(2006) s sec 219 
Relied on. 
Para 15 
• 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICT

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