LexVELAYUDHAN & ORS. versus MOHAMMEDKUTTY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017) 3 S.C.R. 533 VELAYUDHAN & ORS. v. MOHAMMEDKUTTY & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5459 of2007) APRIL 18,2017 [R. K. AGRAWAL AND AlllIAY MANOIIAR SAPRE, JJ.] Suit- Nature of- For grant of permanent injunction simpliciter or for declaration of title with permanent injunction as · consequential relief - Suit by respondents-plaintiffs in relation to land, decreed by trial court - First appellate court dismissed the suit by allowing the appeal of appellants-defendants - High Court in second appeal by respondents decreed the suit holding that the suit was one for perpetual injunction and thus investigation into the question of title was not necessary - Propriety of - Held: One of the questions, which fell for consideration before the first and second appellate Court was regarding the nature of the suit filed by the respondents and the reliefs claimed therein - High Court proceeded on the assumption that the civil suit filed by the re!>pondents was essentially for grant of permanent injunction simpliciter - The issue of title having swfaced in the relief clause, the same is of some significance over the rights of the parties while considering the grant of the reliefs - Keeping in view the averments made in the plaint read with the prayer clause, it cannot be said that the suit is only for grant of permanent injunction simpliciter - Matter remanded back to High Court - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s.100 - Substantial question of law. Allowing the appeal in part, the Court HELD: 1.1 One of the questions, which fell for consideration before the first and second appellate Court was regarding the nature of the suit filed by the respondents and the reliefs claimed therein. Was it a suit for grant of permanent injunction sim pliciter or a suit to seek a declaration of title with consequential relief of grant of permanent injunction in relation lo the suit land? [Paras 10, 11) [536-D-E) 1.2 Reading the expression "or from doing a11ytlii11g 533 A B c D E F G H 534 A B c D E F SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R. detrimental to the title and possession of the plaintiffs" in the prayer clause of the plaint shows that the plaintiffs have also expressed apprehension in relation to their title over the suit properties. [Para 13 ][ 536-ll] 1.3 Keeping in view the averments made in Para 1 of the plaint read with aforementioned words of the prayer clause, it cannot be said that the suit is only fur grant of permanent injunction simpliciter. In other words, the issue of title having surfaced in the relief clause, the same is of some significance over the rights of the parties while considering the grant of the reliefs. It is true that the relief clause in the plaint is not happily worded but the reading of the plaint as a whole in the context of the reliefs claimed therein would go to show that the issue of title is not wholly foreign to the controversy and is relevant while considering the grant of permanent injunction. [Paras 14, 15 and 16] [537-A-C) 1.4 The High Court proceeded to decide the appeal in the light of the first substantial·quesii'on of law and thus committed an error. The first error was in framing the wrong question and the second was in proceeding to examine the said question. In view of the aforesaid reasons;· the matter needs a fresh look by the High Court after framing proper questions of law keeping in view the pleadings and the findings of the two Courts below. [Paras 17, 19 and 20][537-C-D, E-G) Anathula Sudhakar v. P Buchi Reddy (Dead) by L.Rs. & Ors. (2008) 4 sec 594 : [2008] 5 SCR 331 - referred to. Case· Law Reference [2008) 5 SCR 331 referred to Para 18 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5459 of2007. G From the Judgment and Order dated 08.03 .2006 of the High Court H ofKerala at Ernakulam, in S. A. No. 180/920 & 475/1992. M. K. S. Menon, Ms. Shreya Menon, Ms. Usha Nandini V: (for Jogy Scaria), Advs. for the Appellants. K. Rajeev, Shinoj K. Narayanan, Ad vs. for the Respondents. VELAYUDHAN & ORS. v. MOHAMMEDKUTTY & ORS. 535 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A ABIIAY MANOUAR SAPRE, J. I. This appeal is filed by the defendants against the final judgment and order dated 08.03.2006 passed by the High Court of Kerala in S.A. No.180 & 475/1992 whereby the High Court allowed the second appeals filed by the plaintiffs-respondents herein and set aside the judgment and decree dated 26.07.1991 of the B
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.