SIDRAMAPPA versus RAJASHETTY AND ORS.

Citation: [1970] 3 S.C.R. 319 · Decided: 09-12-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
JI 
G 
H 
319 
SIDRAMAPPA 
v. 
RAJASHEITY AND ORS. 
December 9, 1969 
(J. C. SHAH AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.J 
Code of Civil Proc~dure, 1908--0rder 2 rule 2-Suit for reopening 
execution proceedings and implettding as legal r~presentative--Subsequent 
suit based on title-If barred by Order 2, rule 2. 
The appellant applied to the executing court to reopen the execution 
proceedings in respect of certain properties and to implead him as the 
leg.:! representative of the owner of the properties, claiming that as the 
adopted son he was entitled to delivery of possession. The Court dismis-
sed the application holding that his remedy was by way of a separate suit. 
Thereupon he filed a s,uit for a declaration that he was entitled to be 
impleaded in the execution 
proceedings as the legal representative 
and 
proceed'-with the execution. 
The purported cause of action fo-r suit wa5. 
the dismissal of the earlier application for impleading in the execution 
proceedings. 
The suit was dismissed on the ground that it was hit by 
s. 42 of the Specific Relief Act inasmuch as it was not one for possession 
of the concerned property. Thereafter the appellant filed another suit on 
the basis of his title. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground 
that the relief in question was barred by Order 2 rule 2 of the Code of 
Civil Procedure. 
The High Court affirmed. 
On the question whether the 
plaintiff's daim in respect of the properties was barred by Order 2 rule 
2 Code of Civil Procedure, 
HELD : The High Court and the trial cotirt proceeded on the erron· 
eous basis that the former suit was a suit for a declaration of the appel-
lant's title to the prope'rties in question. 
The requirements of Order 2 
rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure is that every suit should · include the 
whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of a 
"cause of action." 
'Cause of action' means the 'cause 
of action 
for 
wh'ch the suit was brought'. It cannot be said that the cause of action 
on which the present suit was brought is the same as that in the previous 
suit. Cause of action is a caiuse of action which gives occasion for and 
forms the foundation of the suit. If that cause of action enables a per· 
son to ask for a larger and wider relief than that to which he limits his 
claim, he cannot afterwards seek to recover the balance by independent 
proceedings. [321 G, 322 A.CJ 
In the instant case the cause of action on the basis of which the pre-
vious suit was brought does not form the foundation of the present suit. 
The cause of action mentioned in the earlier suit, 
assumin~ the same 
afforded a basis for a valid claim, did not enable the plaintiff to ask for 
any relief other than those he prayed for in that suit. 
In that suit he 
could not have claimed the relief which he seeks in this suit. Hence the 
trial court and the Hi~h Court were not right in holding that the plaintiff's 
suit was barred by Order 2, rule 2, Code dl Civil Procedure. [322 CD] 
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1953 
of 1969. 
320 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1970) 3 S.C.R. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated 
October 18, 1968 of the Mysore High Court in Regular First 
Appeal No. 56 of 1963. 
M. C. Chagla and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellant. 
S. V. Gupte, R. V. Pillai, Sadasiv Rao and P. Keshava Pillai, 
A 
.for respondent No. I. 
B 
The Judgment of th~ Court was delivered by 
Hegde, J. 
This is a plaintiff's appeal by special leave. 
The 
:plaintiff sued for possession of the suit properties on the. basis of 
his title. 
The suit properties originally belonged to the family 
.of one V eerbaswanth Rao Deshmukh. He died in 1892 wifhout 
.male issues, leaving behind him his widow Ratnabai and a daughter 
by name Lakshmibai. 
Ratnabai succeeded to the estate of her 
husband. She died in 1924. On her death Lakshmibai became 
entitled to the suit properties. But one Parwatibai alias Prayag 
Bai took unlawful possession of the suit properties. 
Hence 
Lakshmibai instituted a suit for their possession in the court of 
Sadar Adalath, Gulbarga, against the said Parwatibai 
and 
obtained a decree. 
In execution of the said decree Lakshmibai 
obtained delivery of the lands described in Schedule II to the 
plaint. Lakshmibai died in 1948. Sometime thereafter Parwati-
bai also died. The defendant claiming to be the sister's son of 
Veerbaswanth Rao Deshmukh got himself impleaded as the 
legal representa

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