Case Analysis

Ramji Gupta & Anr v. Gopi

Krishan Agrawal (D), (2013) 9
SCC 438

Name- Reeya Prakash

Enrollment no.-00717703819

Semester-V Section-A

Subject- Code of Civil Procedure

Facts of the Case

The dispute was concerning the ownership of shop no. 53/11, whose number has been
changed to 53/8 Nayagani, Kanpur Nagar.

Har Dayal’s daughter, Janki Bibi(1st) was married to Dina Nath’s son, Durga Prasad.
Durga Prasad had a adopted son Radhey Shyam, who also had a son named Shyam
Sundar . He was married to Janki Bibi (2 nd). He died in the year 1914. Therefore, through
a oral will a life interest was created by Radhey Shyam in favour of Janki Bibi(2 nd),
which also provided that only by the consent of Har Dayal’s grandson , Mohan Lal , she
would have the right to adopt son. It was claimed by Mohal Lal’s grandson, Gopi Krishan
to be adopted by janki bibi(2nd) with the permission of Mohan Lal and a registered
document was also made on this subject.

A suit was filed in the court of the Civil Judge, Mohanlalganj in Lucknow, against Smt
Janki Bibi (2nd) by Gopi Krishnan while claiming to be her adopted son, for demanding
the relief of declaration. He contended that Janki Bibi(2 nd) only has a life interest in the
property; therefore she is ineligible to get any compensation or rehabilitation grant bonds
concerning the village Nawai Perg, Jhalotar Ajgain, Tehsil Hasanganj, District Unnao.
Janki Bibi (2nd) denied the claim of adoption of Gopi Krishnan in the suit. The court held
in this suit that Smt Janki Bibi (2 nd) was life estate holder of Radhey Shyam’s property
and she was also entitled to gets the said compensation with regard to the property in
question and the judgment and decree was dated 23-4-1958.

The shop in dispute was under the tenancy of one Shri Badri Vishal. However, that shop
was transferred by Janki Bibi(2nd) in favour of Smt Ram Kumari who was appellant’s
mother and wife of Shri Badri Prasad on 7-5-1974. After the death of Shri Badri Prasad
on 23-1-1986, hence, the appellants inherited the tenancy and rent was continuously paid
by them to the vendee Smt Ram Kumari. Smt Janki Bibi passed away on 27-2-1996.

Suit was filed by the Respondent 1, Gopi Krishnan on 21-2-1989. He contended that,
default was made in the payment of rent by the appellants and sum of Rs 2768.62 was
unpaid against the appellants as rent due between the period 17-2-1989 to 13-8-1988, and
also damages for the period of 14-8-1988 to 21-2-1989, along with other sum due. When
the suit was pending the said disputed property in suit sold by Shri Gopi Krishnan,
Respondent 1 to Smt Vidyawati Rathaur, Respondent 2 on 3-8-1989. Therefore, she
(Respondent 2) impleaded herself as Plaintiff 2 in the suit.
The suit was contested on various grounds by the appellants; they claimed themselves to
be the owner of the property on the grounds of the sale deed. For restraining the
appellants from making any additions or alteration in the shop in dispute, a suit was filed
for permanent injunction by Smt Vidyawati Rathaur, Respondent 2.

The suit filed by Respondent 1 for default in payment of rent by the appellants get
dismissed by the Small Cause Court by the judgment and decree dated 10-5-1999 ,
holding that, no landlord and tenant relationship exist between Respondent1 and 2 and
the appellants. But the said judgment and decree was set aside by the Revisional court in
judgment and decree dated 8-3-2000, and the case was sent back to, for deciding the
same afresh, to the judge of Small Cause Court and it was decreed dated 20-4-2001 ruling
that the property in dispute had been acquired by Gopi Krishan Agrawal, on account of
judgment decided on 23-4-1958, Hence there exist the relationship of landlord and tenant
between the parties. Therefore, the appellants- defendants has made default in payment of
rent.

The case was filed for revision by the aggrieved party, the appellants, before the District
Court, which was dismissed. The High Court affirmed the said order and judgment and
dismissed the writ petition by appellants. Then a review petition was also filed which also
got dismissed by the impugned judgment.

Issues of the Case

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?
 Judgment
The issue of title has not been determined or touched upon by the courts below .It was
necessary for the courts below to depend upon the said judgment and order dated
23-4-1958, in which it was held that Janki Bibi(2 nd) does not have absolute title of the
property and she was a life estate holder . Therefore the executed sale deed in favour of
Smt 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.

Section 14 (2) of the Hindu Succession Act creates an exception to the general rule
provided un 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 , requirements are such , that 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 in this regard.
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 procedure which is adopted before the Small Causes Court in the trial of a case is summary
in nature. Clause (35) of Schedule II to the Act 1887, has made the Small Causes Court, a court
of limited jurisdiction. There are such certain suits, in which the dispute is not capable of being
decided in a summarily.
The court did not find any convincing reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The
appeal lacks merit and therefore, it was dismissed.