SEENIVASAN versus PETER JEBARAJ & ANR.

Citation: [2008] 5 S.C.R. 1185 · Decided: 04-04-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 5 S.C.R. 1185 
SEENIVASAN 
A 
v. 
PETER JEBARAJ & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 854 of 2001) 
APRIL 4, 2008 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
0. 1 R. 10 - Person added as defendant - Date of effect 
of impleadment - Held: Is the date of service of summons - c 
Transfer of Property Act- s.52- Limitation Act, 1963 - s.21. 
The original owner of the suit property entered into 
sale agreement with one 'A' who was father of the 
appellant. However, he sold the property to 'SA'. 'A' filed D 
suit against the original owner for specific performance 
t-
of sale. An application was filed to implead 'SA' as 
defendant. 
'SA' sold the property to respondent's father under 
two sale deeds. On 16.4.1984, an application for impleading E 
'SA' was allowed. The plaint was amended showing 'SA' 
as defendant. Thereafter, an ex-parte decree was passed. 
The respondent's father sold the property to the 
respondents. Executing Court executed sale deed in 
F 
favour of 'A'. 'SA' filed application for condoning the delay 
for setting aside ex parte decree which was dismissed. 
Appeal and revision thereagainst were also dismissed. 
On 12.12.1994, respondents filed suit for declaration of 
title and injunction which was decrel'!d. High Court upheld 
the same on the ground that Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is G 
applicable to proceeding of this nature and that 'SA' had 
got absolute title when sale was made by her and therefore 
~ 
subsequent transferees too had absolute title and that on 
the date when the ex-parte decree was passed, 'SA' did 
1185 
H 
1186 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 
A not have any right to the property. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that 
once the application for bringing 'SA' as party was allowed, 
the same became operative from the date of its filing and 
therefore, the sale by 'SA' to respondent 2 and 3 did not 
B convey any title; and that the effect of s.52 of the Transfer 
of Property Act 1882, has also to be noted. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. The crucial expression in Order 1 Rule 
C 10 CPC is "only on the service of the summons". It is 
abundantly clear that if any defendant is impleaded 
subsequently proceedings as against him shall be 
deemed to have begun only from the date of service of 
summons. Same of course, is subject to the provisions 
D of s.22 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877. [Para 6] 
[1189-E-F] 
-1 
1.2. In sub-rule (5), words "Indian Limitation Act, 
1877" are substituted by Legislature as "Limitation Act, 
E 1963" and "Section 22" by "Section 21 ". Said provision 
does not in any way dilute the significance of the 
expression "shall be deemed to have begun only on the 
service of the summons". Order 1, Rule 10(5) statutorily 
specifies the date on which the impleadment takes effect. 
Order 1 Rule 10(5) is a deeming provision. [Paras 7, 9] 
F [1189-G; 1191-A-B] 
Durga Prasad & Anr. v. Deep Chand & Ors. AIR 1954 
SC 75 and Ramprasad Dagaduram v. Vijaykumar Motila/ 
Hirakhanwala & Ors. 1967 (2) SCJ 805 - relied on. 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
854 of 2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3. ·1.2000 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Madras in S.A. No. 1805/1999 
H 
V. Prabhakar, Ramjee Prasad and Revathy Raghavan for 
SEENIVASAN v. PETER JEBARAJ & ANR. 
1187 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
-\ 
the Appellant. 
A 
Shashi M. Kapila and Rishi Malhotra for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
.DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1, Challenge in this appeal is to . 
B 
the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Madras High 
Court in Second Appeal filed by the respondent No.1. 
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
On 12.2.1978 an agreement for sale was entered into 
between one Shahul Hameed and Arunchalam (father of the c 
appellant). On 26.5.1978 Shahul Hameed sold the property to 
one Saraswathi Ammal who was not a party to the proceedings. 
On 3.2.1981 aforesaid Arunachalam instituted suit No.OS 528 
of .1981 against Shahul Hameed for specific performance. 
Initially Saraswathi Ammal was not a party. On 13.7.1983 an 
D 
application (I.A. No. 830 of 1983) was filed to implead 
r 
Saraswathi Ammal as defendant. On 28.1.1984 Saraswathi 
Am ma I sold the property to Anna Pushpam Ammal and Lalitha 
Ammal under two sale deeds. I.A. No. 830 of 1983 to implead 
Saraswathi Ammal was allowed on 16.4. i 984. On 17 .9.1984 
E 
plaint was amended showing Saraswathi Am ma I as de
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.