9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration as the absolute and exclusive owner of the suit property. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree declaring the decree dated 5.2.1976 in Suit No. 183/74 as null and void. 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession as prayed for. Summary: Issue 1: Whether the suit is barred by limitation The trial court dismissed the suit of the appellant on the ground of limitation, holding that since partial rejection of the plaint is not permitted in law, the entire plaint has to be rejected. The High Court affirmed this decision, stating that the entire suit must be dismissed if partial rejection is not possible. The Supreme Court, however, noted that the point of limitation being a mixed question of law and fact should have been decided after appreciation of evidence already on record and not summarily under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The Court emphasized that the entire plaint should be read as a whole to ascertain its true import and not just isolated paragraphs. Issue 2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration as the absolute and exclusive owner of the suit property The appellant claimed that the property was purchased by his father in his name for his benefit and that he constructed a house on the plot with his funds. The respondents, sons of the appellant's elder brother, claimed possession of the first floor based on a decree obtained by their father. The Supreme Court noted that the trial court should have decided the suit on merits rather than rejecting the plaint on the ground of limitation. Issue 3: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree declaring the decree dated 5.2.1976 in Suit No. 183/74 as null and void The appellant contended that the decree obtained by the respondents' father was fraudulent and that he came to know about it only in 1986. The Supreme Court observed that the trial court and the High Court failed to consider the relevant averments in the plaint, which indicated that the appellant had taken steps at the earliest after gaining knowledge of the decree. The Court held that the knowledge mentioned in the plaint cannot be termed as inadequate and incomplete. Issue 4: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession as prayed for The appellant sought possession of the second floor of the house. The Supreme Court directed the trial court to restore the suit to its original file and dispose of the same on merits, emphasizing that the trial court should have considered all the materials available in the plaint before rejecting it. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the trial court and the High Court, directing the trial court to restore the suit and dispose of it on merits within six months. The Court clarified that it had not gone into the merits of the claims made by both parties, except on the question of limitation.
|
