1948 (5) TMI 8 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit No. 2 of 1938 is barred by Order 2, Rule 2, Civil P.C., 1908.
2. The relationship of the parties and the inheritance claims to the property.
3. The impact of the mutation proceedings on the property claims.
4. The legal implications of the plaintiffs' application for amendment in Suit No. 8 of 1928.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the suit No. 2 of 1938 is barred by Order 2, Rule 2, Civil P.C., 1908:
Order 2, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code mandates that every suit must include the whole of the claim related to the cause of action. If a plaintiff omits or intentionally relinquishes any portion of his claim, he cannot later sue for the omitted portion. The primary question was whether the plaintiffs' Suit No. 2 of 1938 was barred by this rule because they did not include the Shahjahanpur property in their earlier Suit No. 8 of 1928. Both the lower courts held that the suit was barred, reasoning that the plaintiffs' right to recover both the Oudh and Shahjahanpur properties arose upon the death of Rani Barkatunnissa on 13th April 1927. Since the plaintiffs omitted the Shahjahanpur property from Suit No. 8, they were precluded from suing for it later.

2. The relationship of the parties and the inheritance claims to the property:
The plaintiffs, Mohammad Khalil Khan and Fida Ali Khan, claimed the property as heirs of Rani Barkatunnissa, a Sunni, who died on 13th April 1927. The defendants, the Mahbub brothers, were her sister's sons. Various other relatives also asserted claims to her property. The inheritance dispute revolved around whether the plaintiffs, as nephews, were the rightful heirs under Sunni law, which would exclude the sister's sons.

3. The impact of the mutation proceedings on the property claims:
Following Rani Barkatunnissa's death, mutation proceedings were initiated in the Revenue Courts. Initially, the Assistant Collector ordered the mutation in favor of the plaintiffs, but this was reversed by the Collector, who ruled that possession, not title, should determine the mutation. The plaintiffs argued that their cause of action for the Shahjahanpur property accrued only after the final decision in the mutation appeal on 29th October 1928. However, the court held that the plaintiffs were aware of the dispute and could have included the Shahjahanpur property in Suit No. 8.

4. The legal implications of the plaintiffs' application for amendment in Suit No. 8 of 1928:
The plaintiffs attempted to amend the plaint in Suit No. 8 to include the Shahjahanpur property, but this application was dismissed. The court held that the plaintiffs "omitted to sue" for the Shahjahanpur property by not including it in the original plaint. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants should not be allowed to raise the Order 2, Rule 2 plea because they opposed the amendment. However, the court found that the defendants' opposition did not preclude them from raising the plea, and the plaintiffs' omission to include the property in the original suit was decisive.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the plaintiffs' cause of action for both the Oudh and Shahjahanpur properties was the same, arising from their claim as heirs of Rani Barkatunnissa. The plaintiffs were barred by Order 2, Rule 2 from maintaining the present suit for the Shahjahanpur property because they omitted to include it in their earlier suit. The appeal was dismissed with costs.