You are on page 1of 5

CASE ANALYSIS OF RAZIA BEGUM V.

ANWAR BEGUM

(Case analysis towards the fulfilment of assessment in the subject of Code Of Civil

Procedure, 1908)

SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:

Anshul Chauhan Mr. Deepankar Sharma

Roll No : 1538 Faculty of Law

Semester III NLU Jodhpur

B.A. LL.B., Section A

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, JODHPUR

SESSION (JULY –NOVEMBER 2018)


Case analysis: Razia Begum v Anwar Begum1

Parties to the case:-

A) Nizam of Hyderabad’s second son’s First Wife (married in 1948) – Appellant

(hereinafter called Appellant)

B) Nizam of Hyderabad’s second son’s Second Wife (married in 1952) – Respondent 1

(hereinafter called Respondent)

C) Nizam of Hyderabad’s second son’s son by way of Second Wife – Respondent 2

D) Nizam of Hyderabad’s second son – Respondent 3 (hereinafter called Prince)

Main point of CPC highlighted by the court:

CPC provisions being dealt with – Order no.1 Rule 10 sub-rule 2. Deals with the power of the

Court to allow joining of parties which it deems necessary and proper to settle all the issues

raised in the suit.

Facts:

The Appellant filed a suit against the Prince due to the non payment of the Kharch-e-Pandan

(a type of maintenance) that he was required to pay to her. The Prince in his written statement

admitted that the Appellant was his wife and that he was obligated to pay the amount. But ten

days after the Written Statement was filed, R 1 and R 2 filed an application before the trial

court asking that they too be made parties in the case. They alleged that the Appellant and the

Prince are colluding, that they share the same interest as the Defendant (Prince) should have

in invalidating the marriage and any rights to the Appellant. The Appellant in her answer to

the intervention application stated that there is no collusion that R 1 and R 2 are not necessary

and proper parties, their contentions are not to be examined to resolve dispute with the

1
1958 AIR 886

2|Page
Prince, that it is a malicious attempt to unnecessarily prolong the dispute. The Prince in his

application also stated the same way.

Issue:- Whether R 1 and R 2 are necessary and proper parties, i.e.: whether they can be

joined to the Court by way of O1 R10.

Court Judgement Important points:-

Majority

 A person having a subject matter in a suit cannot be made party to the suit.

 This case concerned with the declaration of status (as wife of the Prince) by the

Appellant.

 Such suits come under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act.

 This section recognizes the right in any person to have a declaration made in respect

of his legal character or any right to property

 In such a suit, court noted that any person denying or interested to deny the existence

of any legal character or the alleged right to any property, would be a necessary party.

 In this case the Prince was not contesting the fact that the Appellant was his wife. So

no need for any Declaration of that kind against the Prince.

 But Court noted that a declaration under Section 42 will bind all persons claiming

under the parties as per Section 43. This will include the daughters and the son of the

Appellant and Prince respectively.

 Section 42 is not a remedy by way of course, Court can require the Plaintiff to prove

ir even if Defendant has admitted to the same in the Written Statement. It is

discretionary.

3|Page
 Thus three daughters of the Appellant will become legitimate affecting the rights to

property held by R1 and R2.

 This adverse impact will make R1 and R2 necessary parties to the suit and they can

claim relief.

Ratio:

 That the question of addition of parties under r. 10 of 0. I of the Code of Civil

Procedure, is generally not one of initial jurisdiction of the court, but of a judicial

discretion which has to be exercised in view.

 That in a suit relating to property in order that a person may be added as a party, he

should have a direct interest as distinguished from a commercial interest in the subject

matter of the litigation.

 The rule laid down in s. 43 of the Specific Relief Act is not exactly a rule of res

judicata. It is narrower in one sense and wider in another.

Relevance of the judgment:

 The case is relevant to us because it gives a broader understanding to r. 10 of 0. I of

the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It does not restrict its application only to initial

jurisdiction but also to judicial discretion of the courts.

 The court abstained itself from curtailing the discretionary powers of the courts.

 The court clarified that the rule laid down in s. 43 of the Specific Relief Act is not

exactly a rule of res judicata.

4|Page
Analysis:

According to me, there are certain aspects of this judgment which are commendable as well

as subject to certain criticism. One of the laudable aspects of the judgment is that this

judgment did not interfere with the discretionary power of the court. It tried to give a broader

meaning to the r. 10 of 0. I of the Code of Civil Procedure. It also clarified that in a suit

relating to property in order that a person may be added as a party, he should have a direct

interest as distinguished from a commercial interest in the subject matter of the litigation. It

gave a wide interpretation to the interpret Sections 42 and 43 of SRA differently so as to

construe R1 and R1 as parties to the suit.

5|Page