LexSHARADAMMA versus MOHAMMED PYREJAN (D) THROUGH LRS. &ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2015] 9 S.C.R. 352 SHARADAMMA v. MOHAMMED PYREJAN (D) THROUGH LRS. &ANR. (Civil Appeal No.7889 of2015) SEPTEMBER 23, 2015 [KURIAN JOSEPH AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. •22 r. 10, 11 - Assignment/release of rights during pendency of appeal - C Suit for declaration of title and for restoration of possession by appellant- Dismissed by trial court-Appeal thereagainst dismissed by the High Court on the ground that appellant had released her interest in the suit property in favour of her 0 daughter- Sustainability of- Held: Not sustainable - Merely due to the assignment or release of the rights during the pendency of the appeal, appellant did not lose the right to continue the appeal- Merely by transfer of the property during the pendency of the suit or the appeal, plaintiff or appellant, E as the case may be, ordinarily has a right to continue the appeal- Thus, there cannot be dismissal of the suit or appeal on account of failure of assignee to fife an application to continue the proceedings - It is at the option of the assignee to move an application for impleadment - It would be open F to the assignor to continue the proceedings notwithstanding the fact that he ceased to have any interest in the subject- matter of dispute - Matter remitted back to .the High Court for deciding afresh. G Dhurandhar Prasad Singh v. Jai Prakash University & H Ors. 2001 (3) S<;:R 1129: 2001 (6) SCC 534; Jaskirat Datwani v. Vidyavati & Ors. 2002 (5) SCC 647 - referred to. Case Law Reference 2001 (3) SCR 1129 referred to. Para 6 352 SHARADAMMA v. MOHAMMED PYREJAN (D) THROUGH 353 LRS 2002 (5) sec 647 referred to. Para 7 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7889 of2015. A From the Judgment and Order dated 24.09.2013 of the 8 . High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular First Appeal No.1735of2011. S. N. BhatfortheAppellant. Kiran Suri, S. J. Amith, Gautam Kumar, Dr. Vipin Gupta C for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by parties. ARUN MISHRA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the D 2. Leave granted. 3. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 24.9.2013 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore E in Regular First Appeal No.1735 of 2011, dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant on the ground that she had released her interest in the suit property in favour of her daughter Smt. Padmavathi on 11.4.2011 and said Padmavathi, in turn, had tran.sferred the property in favour of Mr. G.R. F Ramesh vide sale deed dated 20.4.2011. Consequ~ntly, she had lost her right to continue the appeal preferred as against dismissal of the suit vide judgment and order dated 16.6.1990. 4. The facts, in brief, indicate that Sharadamma, plaintiff- G appellant had filed Original Suit No.6020of1998 on 5.8.1998 for the purposes of declaration of title and for restoration of possession on the strength of registered sale deed dated 10.11.1965. The plaintiff had also claimed a sum of Rs.3,000/ - towards past damages and a further sum of Rs.20/- per day H 354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 9 S.C.R. A as continuing damages. The suit was dismissed by the trial court against wh.ich the plaintiff had preferred regular first appeal before the High Court. The same has been dismissed on the aforesaid ground by the impugned judgment and order. B 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and opine that the impugned judgment is patently illegal. Merely due to the assignment or release of the rights during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant did not in any manner lose the right to continue the appeal. Merely by transfer of the C property during the pendency of the suit or the appeal, plaintiff or appellant, as the case may be, ordinarily has a right to continue the appeal. It is at the option of the assignee to move an application for impleadment. Considering the provisions contained in Order 22 Rule 10 and Order 22 Rule 11 of the D Code of Civil Procedure, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court cannot be allowed to be sustained. Order 22 Rule 1 O and Order 22 Rule 11 CPC are extracted hereunder: E ORDER XXll, RULES 10 AND 11. "10. Procedure in case of assignment before final order in suit.- (1) In other cases of an assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit, the suit may, by leave of the Court, be continued F by or against the per
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.