1971 (3) TMI 114 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the gift-deed dated 2nd May, 1951.
2. Allegations of fraud and ante-dating of the gift-deed.
3. Plea of res judicata.
4. Right of Smt. Mendri and the limitation period for filing a suit.
5. Amendment of pleadings.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the gift-deed dated 2nd May, 1951:
The trial court held that the gift-deed executed by Bhiwa was fraudulent and not binding on the appellant, whereas the gift-deeds executed by Smt. Mendri were valid. The appellate court affirmed this finding, stating that the gift-deed was ante-dated and executed after the sale-deeds in favor of the appellant. However, the High Court found that the lower courts erred in deciding the case on the grounds of fraud or ante-dating, as these issues were not raised in the pleadings before the trial court. Consequently, the High Court set aside the findings of fraud and ante-dating and held the gift-deed to be valid.

2. Allegations of fraud and ante-dating of the gift-deed:
The appellant argued that the High Court was not justified in setting aside the findings of fraud and ante-dating by the first appellate court. The High Court found that the pleadings did not contain any reference to the sale deed being fraudulent or ante-dated. The issues framed by the trial court did not suggest fraud or ante-dating, and no evidence was led with the object of meeting such a plea. The High Court concluded that the findings of fraud and ante-dating were unjustified and set them aside.

3. Plea of res judicata:
The appellate court dismissed the respondents' appeal on the additional ground that the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata due to an inter-parties judgment in Civil Suit No. 42-A of 1952. The High Court found that the material placed before the first appellate court to decide this question was insufficient. Consequently, the High Court remanded the case to the trial court to consider the plea of res judicata, allowing parties to amend their pleadings accordingly.

4. Right of Smt. Mendri and the limitation period for filing a suit:
The appellate court allowed the appellant's cross-objection on the ground that Smt. Mendri had lost her right to the property due to her failure to file a suit for partition or possession within three years after the Magistrate's order under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court found that the title to the properties claimed by the respondents through the gift-deed executed by Bhiwa himself made the earlier title claimed through Smt. Mendri immaterial.

5. Amendment of pleadings:
The High Court permitted amendments related to the plea of res judicata but did not allow amendments concerning fraud, collusion, or ante-dating of the gift-deed. The appellant's request to amend the written statement to include pleadings of fraud and ante-dating was rejected, as these questions had already been decided by the High Court and any suit on such pleas was time-barred. The High Court's order was interpreted to set aside findings only on the points it considered, not on all issues.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court was justified in setting aside the findings of fraud and ante-dating. The plea of res judicata was to be reconsidered by the trial court, and amendments to pleadings were limited to this plea. The appeal was dismissed with costs.