Presentation for cpc case analysis

Good morning ma’am, my name is reeya prakash and today I am going to give presentation on
the case Ramji Gupta & Anr v. Gopi Krishan Agrawal.

So firstly I will start with a brief background concerning the disputed property .so there was one
Janki Bibi(1st) who was daughter of har dayal who got married to Durga Prasad . . Durga
Prasad had a adopted son Radhey Shyam, who also had a son named Shyam Sundar and
He was married to Janki Bibi (2nd)and He died in the year 1914.

By A oral will, a life interest was created by Radhey Shyam in favour of Janki Bibi(2 nd),
which provided that only by the consent of Har Dayal’s grandson , Mohan Lal , she
would have the right to adopt son. Gopi Krishan who was the grandson of Mohan lal
claimed to be adopted by janki bibi(2nd) with the permission of Mohan Lal and a
registered document was also made for same. Then gopi krishan later filed a suit in which
he contended Janki Bibi(2nd) only has a life interest in the property. Janki Bibi (2 nd)
denied the claim. The court held in this suit that Janki Bibi (2 nd) was life estate holder of
Radhey Shyam’s property

Now the facts of the case are The shop in dispute was under the tenancy of one Badri
Vishal, that shop was transferred by Janki Bibi(2nd) in favour of Ram Kumari who was
appellant’s mother and wife of Badri Prasad on 7-may-1974 . After the death of Badri
Prasad on 23-1-1986, the appellants inherited the tenancy and rent was continuously paid
by them to the vendee Ram Kumari. then Janki Bibi passed away on 27-2-1996.

Gopi Krishnan filed a suit He contended that, default was made in the payment of rent by
the appellants

When the suit was pending the said disputed property in suit was sold by Gopi Krishnan(
Respondent 1) to Vidyawati Rathaur ( Respondent 2) on 3-augest-1989 who impleaded
herself as Plaintiff 2 in the suit.

The suit by respondent 1 for default in rent was dismissed by small causes court by the
judgment and decree dated 10-may-1999. holding that, no landlord and tenant
relationship exist between Respondent1 and 2 and the appellants. Then the revisional
court sent back the case to small causes court for deciding fresh .

Small Cause Court ruled that the property in dispute had been acquired by Gopi Krishan
Agrawal, based on previous decision and that there exist the relationship of landlord and
tenant between the parties. Therefore, the appellants- defendants has made default in
payment of rent. The aggrieved party filed for revision which got dismissed by district
court and then high court. And then the case moved to Supreme court.

So Issues before the court was

1. Whether the Small Cause Court has jurisdiction to determine the issue of title over
the property?
2. Whether a question regarding title in a small cause suit can be made the basis for a
plea of res judicata?
3. Whether all the courts below have erred as they have adjudicated upon the issue of
title?
4. Whether the judgment and order dated 23-4-1958 could be given effect in view of
provision of section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?
5. Whether the appeal should be allowed?

Judgement

The issue of title was not touched by the courts below It was necessary for the courts
below to depend upon the said judgment and order dated 23-april-1958. That’s why the
executed sale deed in favour of Ram Kumari was held to be null and void. The said
judgment and decree was also relied in collateral proceedings, all of which were rejected
and the High Court also affirmed such findings.

And it was also stated that Section 14 (2) of the Hindu Succession Act creates an
exception to the general rule provided in Sub -Section (1), which provides that if a Hindu
female acquired a property by a Will or gift, only giving her a “life interest”, even after
the commencement of the Act 1956, her title will remain the same and such a Hindu
female cannot acquire absolute title.

In order to operate as res judicata the matter should be directly and substantially in issue
in the former suit, and the said issue must be heard and finally decided by the court
trying such suit. Collaterally or incidentally a matter in issue for the purpose of deciding a
matter which is directly in issue in the case, cannot become a ground for a plea of res
judicata. Therefore, when in a small cause suit a question is regarding the title, it may be
regarded as incidental to the substantial issue in the suit. Hence when the small causes
court provides finding as regards title to immovable property, then res judicata cannot be
pleaded as a bar in the subsequent suit for the enforcement of any right or interest in the
immovable property.
According to Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, the Small Causes
Court does not have right to adjudicate upon the title of the property. Therefore in this case
the trial court has correctly refused to go into the issue of title of property and neither can
any fault be found with the findings recorded by the courts below regarding this.
Furthermore, that the defendant nos. 1 and 2 were tenants of the original plaintiffs is an
admitted fact, at the behest of the appellants the question of title cannot be adjudicated
under any circumstance.

The court did not find any convincing reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The
appeal lacks merit and therefore, it was dismissed.