9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. Eligibility for compensation under the Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, 1958. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: The appellant contested the applicability of Order II Rule 2, arguing that the cause of action for both the suits was identical, and the plaintiffs in the subsequent suit had claimed reliefs that were sought in the earlier suit. Order II Rule 2 mandates that a suit must include the whole claim arising from a single cause of action, and if a plaintiff omits any portion of the claim, they cannot later sue for it. The rule emphasizes that all reliefs from the same cause of action should be included in one suit to avoid multiple litigations for the same cause. The Court examined whether the cause of action in the earlier suit was identical to that in the subsequent suit. The earlier suit was for confirmation of possession, while the present suit was for recovery of possession. The Court cited the case of Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal, which laid down that for a plea under Order II Rule 2 to succeed, the defendant must prove that the second suit is based on the same cause of action as the first. The Court also referenced Bengal Waterproof Limited v. Bombay Waterproof Manufacturing Company and Another, which reiterated that the cause of action must be identical in both suits to attract the bar of Order II Rule 2. The Court concluded that the cause of action in the two suits was different. The first suit was based on an apprehension of dispossession, while the subsequent suit was based on actual dispossession. Therefore, Order II Rule 2 did not apply, and the decree for recovery of possession in favor of the plaintiffs was affirmed. 2. Eligibility for Compensation under the Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, 1958: The appellant claimed compensation for improvements made to the property under Section 2(d) of the Compensation Act, which defines a "tenant" and includes persons who, in good faith, believe themselves to be lessees or who make improvements under a bona fide belief of entitlement. The appellant argued that he fell under clauses (i) and (iii) of Section 2(d), asserting that he believed himself to be a lessee and had made improvements in good faith. The Court noted that the three clauses of Section 2(d) address different situations: - Clause (i) pertains to persons who in good faith believe themselves to be lessees. - Clause (ii) deals with persons who cultivate land with the intention of attorning and paying rent. - Clause (iii) covers persons who make improvements under a bona fide belief of entitlement. The Court found that the appellant's claim required factual determination regarding the timing and nature of the improvements. If the improvements were made after disputes began, they might not be considered bona fide. The Trial Court had not adequately considered whether the appellant acted in good faith or with a bona fide belief when making the improvements. The Court remitted the matter to the Trial Court for fresh consideration of the appellant's claim for compensation, instructing it to adjudicate the matter within six months and allow the parties to present evidence. Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed, affirming the decree for recovery of possession but remitting the matter of compensation for improvements to the Trial Court for further adjudication. The Court emphasized the need for factual determination regarding the appellant's good faith and bona fide belief in making the improvements.
|
