LexSHANK.AR SITARAM SONTAKKE AND ANOTHER versus BALKRISHNA SITARMI SONTAKKE AND. OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. r S.C.R~··-··sUPREl\IE COURT REPORTS . 99 The thir~ "point set out in the certificate of the High Court relates to the , absence ()f particulars in the charge and, we gathered from the arguments, . in the sanction._ But no particulars need be set out in the charge in such a case because the offence under sec- tion 5(1 )(a) does not consist of indi vid ualacts of bribe taking as in sectionJ61 of the Indian Penal Code but is of a general , character. Individual instances may be useful to prove the general averment in particular cases but it is by no means necessary because of the presumption which section 5(3) requires the Court to draw. There was therefore no illegality either in , the sanction or in the charge ; nor has the accused been prejudiced because he knew everything that was being · urged against him and led evidence to refute the facts on which the prosecution i:elied. He was also question- ed about the material facts set out above in his examination under section 342 of the Criminal Pro- cedure Code and was given a chance then ·as well to give such explanation as he wished. • The appeal fails and i~ dismissed. ' Appeal dismissed . SHANK.AR SITARAM SONTAKKE AND ANOTHER v. BALKRISHNA SITARMI SONTAKKE AND. OTHERS. [l\IEHR CHAND l'llAHAJAN C.J., VIVIAN BosE and GHULAM HASAN JJ.]. Coosent decree-Legal effect thereof-Compromise not vitiated -by fraud, misreprese·ntation, misunderstanding or mistake-Decree pas3ed thereon-Whether operates as res iudicata......:. Civil Procedure - Code-( Act V of 1908)--0rder II, rule 2(3)-Relinquishment of· claim in a prior suit-Sttbsequent suit barred in respect of the claim so omitted. · It is well settled that a consent decree is as binding upon the parties thereto as a. decree passed by invitum... Where a com pro~ misa is round not to be vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation, '954 Biswabkusan Naik v. The State of · 01issa. Bose]. I954 .. 1954 Shank.or Sitaram Sontakkt and Another y, Balkrishna Sitaram Sontakke and Others. Ghulam HasanJ. 100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955] ~isu_nderstanding or mistake, the decree passed thereon has the b1nd1ng force of res judicata. Where t~e plaintiff confines his claim to account for a period up to a .c~rta1n date only, he relinquishes his claim implicitly if not exphc1tly to the account for the subsequent period becausC- Order H, rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down that if a p~r~on omits, except with the leave of the Court, to. sue for all rehets to which he is entitled, he shall not afterwards. sue for any reliefs so omitted. C1v1L APPELLATE JuR1so1cnoN : Civil Appeal No. ; 113 of 1953. Appeal from the Judgment and Decree, dated the 25th day of March, 1952, of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Bavdekar and Dixit JJ.) in Appeal No. 554 of 1951, from Original Decree arising out of the Judgment and Decree, dated the 30th day of June,. 1951, of the Court of the Joint Civil Judge, Senior l.. Division of Thana, in Special Suit No. 12 of 1949. K. S. Krishnaswamy Iyengar, (!. B. Dadachanji, V. B. Rege and Ganpat Rai, with him) for the appellants. S. B. fathar, R. B. Kotwal and Naunit Lal for res-· pondent No. 1. 1954. April 12. The Judgment of the Court was' delivered by >- GHULAM HASAN ].-This appeal is brought by leave of the High Court of Bombay against the judgment and decree of a Division Bench of that Court (Bavdekar and Dixit JJ.) dated March 25, 1952, modifying the· judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Senior Divi- sion of Thana, dated June 30, 1951. The appeal arises out of a partition between 6 brothers of a joint Hindu family. The joint family carried on joint family business of a grocery shop, liquor shops, a ration shop, a motor-bus service and also money- lending under the name of "Sontakke Brothers". The· family also possessed immovable and movable property. Balkrishna Sitaram Sontakke is the ·eldest of the bro- thers and is the plaintiff respondent in the present appeal. He will be referred t? hereafter as the plaintiff. It is common ground that up to 1944 the brothers. were living and messing together and the income from I , - S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 101 the family business used to be kept with the plaintiff. From April 14, 1945, the situation changed and the parties began to appropriate the proceeds of the various businesses carried on by them separately to themselves. T
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.