2015 (1) TMI 1345 - SC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of the suit - suit filed by the father of the appellants in respect of property owned by appellants Nos.1 and 2 even when the appellants were added as plaintiffs as heirs of their father who died during pendency of the suit - whether description of the appellants who are owners as heirs instead of owners in their own right will be a case of mere error defect or irregularity not affecting the merits or jurisdiction of the Court which did not affect the maintainability of the suit. it is undisputed that appellants Nos.1 and 2 are the sole owners of the property in question Held that - It is not disputed that they were substituted as plaintiffs on the death of Shiv Kumar before the trial Court itself. It is also not disputed that they could maintain the suit for eviction. Thus on admitted facts only defect pointed out is of formal nature in description without in any manner affecting the merits or the jurisdiction of the Court. Such irregularity could have been corrected by the Court under Order 1 Rule 10 and can be corrected even at this stage unless the defendant is in any manner prejudiced. No principle or authority has been brought to our notice which could affect the maintainability of the suit merely on account of wrong description which did not in any manner cause prejudice to the defendant particularly when no such objection is shown to have been raised before the trial Court. In our view the District Judge is thus not justified in reversing the decree of the trial Court on such a technicality which did not in any manner affect the merits of the case. Section 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 provides as under 1 99. No decree to be reversed or modified for error or irregularity not affecting merits or jurisdiction No decree shall be reversed or substantially varied nor shall any case be remanded in appeal on account of any misjoinder or non-joinder of parties or causes of action or any error defect or irregularity in any proceedings in the suit not affecting the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the Court Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to non-joinder of a necessary party. Thus the High Court also erred in upholding the order of the District Judge.

Summary

Issues involved:
Whether a suit filed by the father of the appellants in respect of property owned by the appellants could be held as maintainable after the father's death and the appellants being added as plaintiffs as heirs. Whether describing the appellants as heirs instead of owners affected the maintainability of the suit.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute over a property where the father of the appellants initially filed a suit for eviction against a tenant. After the father's death, the appellants were added as plaintiffs as heirs. The trial court passed a decree for eviction and rent payment in favor of the plaintiffs. However, the District Judge reversed the decree, stating that only the sons of the deceased father had the right to file the suit based on a will bequeathing the property to them. The High Court affirmed this decision.

The key issue was whether the suit filed by the father, and later continued by the sons as heirs, was maintainable. The District Judge and the High Court focused on a technicality regarding the description of the appellants as heirs instead of owners in the cause title. The appellants argued that this was a formal defect that did not affect the merits or jurisdiction of the court. They contended that the defect could have been corrected under Order 1 Rule 10 and did not prejudice the defendant. The Supreme Court agreed, citing Section 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which states that a decree should not be reversed for errors or irregularities not affecting the merits or jurisdiction of the court.

The Supreme Court held that the District Judge and the High Court erred in focusing on a technicality that did not impact the substance of the case. They allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the High Court and the District Judge, and restoring the trial court's decree for eviction and rent payment in favor of the appellants.