9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (9) TMI 612 - SC - Indian LawsWhether the suit is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Sections 38 and 41 of the Specific Relief Act? Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? Whether the agreement dated 30.5.95 as alleged is executed between the parties? Whether the agreement dated 30.5.95 is forged and fabricated? If so, to what effect. Whether the defendant is the owner of property No. 598/1, Gali Kaitwali, Sangtrashan, Paharganj, New Delhi? Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the possession and injunction prayed for?
Issues Involved:
1. Propriety of directions issued by the Delhi High Court. 2. Suit maintainability under Sections 38 and 41 of the Specific Relief Act. 3. Proper valuation for court fee and jurisdiction. 4. Execution and authenticity of the agreement dated 30.5.95. 5. Ownership of the property No. 598/1, Gali Kaitwali. 6. Entitlement to possession and injunction. 7. Grant of damages or compensation by way of mesne profit. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Propriety of Directions Issued by the Delhi High Court: The appeal questions the propriety of certain directions issued by the Delhi High Court. The High Court had directed the appellant to pay compensation to the respondent for non-payment of the amount under the agreement. The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in framing additional issues that did not arise from the suit or appeal. The High Court's jurisdiction in equity must be exercised within the bounds of statutory law, and it cannot grant reliefs not prayed for in the original suit. 2. Suit Maintainability under Sections 38 and 41 of the Specific Relief Act: The trial court had to determine whether the suit was maintainable under Sections 38 and 41 of the Specific Relief Act. The trial court decreed that the suit was maintainable, leading to a decree for possession and a permanent injunction against the defendant. 3. Proper Valuation for Court Fee and Jurisdiction: The issue of whether the suit was properly valued for court fee and jurisdiction was raised. The trial court found that the suit was properly valued, allowing the case to proceed. 4. Execution and Authenticity of the Agreement Dated 30.5.95: The trial court examined whether the agreement dated 30.5.95 was executed between the parties and whether it was forged or fabricated. The court concluded that the agreement was indeed executed and was not forged, thus upholding its validity. 5. Ownership of the Property No. 598/1, Gali Kaitwali: The trial court also addressed the issue of whether the defendant was the owner of property No. 598/1, Gali Kaitwali. The court confirmed the defendant's ownership of the property. 6. Entitlement to Possession and Injunction: The trial court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, granting possession of the shop premises and a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from selling, alienating, letting, or otherwise parting with the possession of the shop. 7. Grant of Damages or Compensation by Way of Mesne Profit: The High Court directed the appellant to pay compensation for non-payment of the amount under the agreement, including interest at 6% per annum from 30th May 1995. The Supreme Court found that this direction was not legally sustainable as the plaintiff did not initially pray for damages or mesne profit. According to Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, all reliefs should be claimed in the original suit. The Supreme Court emphasized that damages cannot be granted without payment of court fees and a preliminary decree for determination of actual damages. Conclusion: The Supreme Court held that the High Court was incorrect in issuing directions for compensation not originally prayed for in the suit. The appeal was disposed of with directions for the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- by way of costs to the respondent, in addition to the costs already directed by the trial court and the High Court. The Supreme Court reiterated that equitable jurisdiction must be exercised within the confines of statutory law, and reliefs not claimed in the original suit cannot be granted indirectly.
|
