9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 916 - HC - Companies LawMaintainability of suit - suit instituted by authorized person or not - Order VI Rule 14 as well as the provisions of Order XXIX Rule 1 CPC - right, title and interest over the suit land or not - recovery of possession of the suit land from the defendant - Whether the learned first appellate court while arriving at the finding that the suit has not been instituted by authorized person of the company overlooked the provisions of Order VI Rule 14 as well as the provisions of Order XXIX Rule 1 CPC? - HELD THAT - The trial court decided the suit vide judgment and decree dated 22.3.2016. The order satisfying the criteria stipulated in Section 560(7) of the Companies Act, 1956 was passed on 4.10.2010 and on the strength of the said order the company received its active status w.e.f. 30.10.2007 prior to the date of filing the suit on 17.12.2008. Accordingly the first appellate court rightly took note of the subsequent development and correctly held that company was in existence on the date of filing the suit. The appellate court has the power under Order XLI Rule 33 CPC to pass such order which ought to have been passed by the trial court on the basis of Section 560(7) Companies Act, 1956 which is the mandate of the law. The power under Order XLI Rule 33 CPC of the appellate court is wide in order to do complete justice to the parties in a lis and the first appellate court is well within its power which requires no interference. Whether reversal of the finding of issue No. 2 is proper on the face of the pleadings of the parties to the suit? - HELD THAT -The suit is for declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiff appellant company over the suit land and other consequential reliefs like recovery of possession, injunction etc. The plaintiff appellant in its plaint pleaded that the suit land was purchased from one Jagannath Paul who executed the Ext.3 sale deed and delivered possession. So the plaintiff appellant derived the title over the suit land upon execution of the sale deed by the vendor Jagannath Paul. On the other hand the defendant respondent in his written statement denied purchase of the suit land vide registered sale deed No. 240/1985 dated 2.2.1985 from Jagannath Paul and the delivery of possession by the said vendor. The trial court framed issue No. 2 whether the plaintiff has right, title and interest over the suit land upon consideration of the pleadings of the parties to the suit - The trial court held that Ext.3 being a registered document so it was presumed that the Ext.3 was validly executed. The defendant respondent failed to dislodge the said presumption. Then the trial court referred to a particular statement made by the defendant respondent as DW 1 in his cross examination that he had no document of purchase of the suit land from its owner i.e. plaintiff and on the basis of the said deposition held that the defendant respondent admitted the ownership of the plaintiff appellant over the suit land. The trial court was wrong in putting the burden on the defendant respondent to dislodge the presumption which the registered document carry u/s 114(c) of the Evidence Act. Admission of the defendant respondent of the title of the plaintiff appellant cannot discharge the onus of plaintiff appellant to prove the execution of Ext. 3 moreso when the plaintiff appellant failed to prove its possession over the suit land since the date of purchase. There is no specific mention in regard to the date of dispossession of the plaintiff appellant from the suit land by the defendant respondent who enjoyed the status of land holder under the Land Revenue Regulation after being granted the kheraj periodic patta to him. There is no denial of execution of the sale deed by the executant, Jagannath Paul. It is not mandatory that a sale deed requires attestation by witnesses and as such the manner and proof of execution of the sale deed does not fall within the sweep of Section 68 of the Evidence Act. But when the fact of execution is disputed in the form of the stand taken by the defendant respondent that he specifically denied purchase of the suit land vide regd. sale deed No. 240/1985 (Ext 3), then irrespective of the stipulation in Section 68 of the Evidence Act if there are any attesting witnesses or scribe, examination of such witnesses become necessary to prove the execution of the sale deed - In view of the discussions the second substantial question of law is decided against the plaintiff appellant thereby upholding the finding of the first appellate court in issue No. 2. The first appellate court rightly considered the pleadings of the defendant respondent wherein the ownership of the plaintiff appellant was denied and moreover he failed to prove the fact that his possession over the suit land was hostile and adverse to the plaintiff appellant and it was within the knowledge of the representatives of the plaintiff appellant including its director, Suresh Kumar Jain that the same was adverse to the interest of the plaintiff appellant from the date of entry of the defendant respondent. The learned first appellate court took note of the pleadings in the plaint and held that the suit was filed within the period of limitation. Thus, the suit filed by the plaintiff appellant is maintainable but the plaintiff appellant failed to prove his title over the suit land for which the plaintiff appellant is not entitled for the reliefs. The suit is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the suit. 2. Plaintiff's right, title, and interest over the suit land. 3. Plaintiff's entitlement to recover possession of the suit land. 4. Plaintiff's entitlement to the reliefs prayed for. 5. Other reliefs the parties may be entitled to. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the Suit: The trial court found the suit not maintainable as the plaintiff company was struck off from the register of the Registrar of Companies (ROC) on 30.10.2007, and the suit was filed on 17.12.2008, when the company was no longer a juristic person. The first appellate court, however, considered an order dated 4.10.2010, which restored the company's "Active" status, and held the company was in existence at the time of filing the suit. The appellate court also noted that the director who filed the suit was not vested with the power to do so by the Memorandum and Articles of the company, as the resolution authorizing him was not signed by other directors. The High Court, however, found that the issue of maintainability was not properly framed based on specific pleadings. It concluded that the suit was maintainable as the director, Suresh Kumar Jain, was authorized by the resolution dated 3.11.2008 and fulfilled the criteria under Order XXIX Rule 1 CPC. 2. Plaintiff's Right, Title, and Interest Over the Suit Land: The trial court decided in favor of the plaintiff, presuming the registered sale deed (Ext. 3) was validly executed and noting the defendant's admission of the plaintiff's ownership. However, the first appellate court reversed this finding, emphasizing the need for proof of execution of the sale deed by the vendor, as required under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. The appellate court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the execution of the sale deed, as no scribe or attesting witnesses were examined. The High Court upheld this view, noting that the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof under Sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act. The court also found that the trial court wrongly placed the burden on the defendant to disprove the presumption of the registered document. 3. Plaintiff's Entitlement to Recover Possession of the Suit Land: The trial court did not specifically address this issue due to its finding on maintainability. The first appellate court, having found the suit maintainable but the plaintiff failing to prove title, implicitly concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover possession. The High Court agreed with this conclusion, noting the plaintiff's failure to prove its title over the suit land. 4. Plaintiff's Entitlement to the Reliefs Prayed For: The trial court did not grant the reliefs due to the maintainability issue. The first appellate court, while reversing the trial court's finding on maintainability, still denied the reliefs as the plaintiff failed to prove its title. The High Court upheld this decision, confirming that the plaintiff was not entitled to the reliefs sought due to the failure to prove title. 5. Other Reliefs the Parties May Be Entitled To: The trial court and the first appellate court did not grant any additional reliefs. The High Court also did not find any basis for granting additional reliefs, given the findings on the main issues. Conclusion: The High Court concluded that the suit was maintainable but the plaintiff failed to prove its title over the suit land. Therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to the reliefs sought, and the suit was dismissed. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.
|
