Partly allowed

Munni Bai @ Bisahin Bai v. Sahulal

Chhattisgarh HC6 Dec 2019SA/435/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the First Appellate Court's decree granting inheritance share to plaintiffs. The Court held that granting title relief under Order 7 Rule 7 CPC was impermissible as the plaintiffs sued only for injunction years after the relative's death and never claimed succession relief, depriving defendants of opportunity to contest.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court granting plaintiffs Pushani Bai's share is set aside; the second appeal is allowed to that extent, and the plaintiffs' suit is dismissed.

Munni Bai @ Bisahin Bai Vs Sahulal — Succession and Inheritance | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

AFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

Second Appeal No. 435 of 2006

¶5

1. Munni Bai @ Bisahin Bai, Aged about 50 years, W/o Shri Chamru Singh, R/o Village Raja Deeh, P.S. Marwahi, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

2. Semjir Bai, W/o Shri Itwar Singh, R/o Village Pateratola, Marwahi, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

3. Bihaniya Bai, W/o Shri Panchu, R/o Village Rumga, Marwahi, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

4. Raghunath Singh (died) through Lrs.

¶9

a. Prem Singh, Aged about 46 years, S/o Late Shri
Raghunath Singh.

¶10

b. Ram Singh, Aged about 48 yars, S/o Late Shri
Raghunath Singh.

¶11

c. Samaru Singh, Aged about 35 years, S/o Late
Shri Raghunath Singh.

¶12

d. Dharam Singh, Aged about 30 years, S/o Late
Shri Umed Singh.

¶13

All R/o Village and Post Rumga, Tahsil Marwahi,
Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

 --- Appellants/Defendants

¶15

Versus

¶16

1.Sahulal, Aged about 33 years, S/o Shri Ramlal.

¶17

2.Babulal, Aged about 37 years, S/o Shri Ramlal.

¶18

3.Gendlal, Aged about 30 years, S/o Shri Ramlal.

¶19

¶20

4. Chhakelal, Aged about 27 years, S/o Shri Ramlal.

¶21

All R/o Village Rajadeeh, P.S. Marwahi, Tahsil
Pendra Road, Distt. Bilaspur, chhattisgarh.

¶22

5. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) through District Collector, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶23

 --- Respondents/Plaintiffs

¶24

For Appellants : Mr. Rakesh Thakur and

¶25

 Mr. Shashi Bhushan Tiwari, Advocates
For Respondents : Mr. R.N. Jha, Advocate
For State : Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Deputy Government
 Advocate

¶26

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶27

Judgment on Board

¶28

06/12/2019

¶29

1.This second appeal preferred by the defendants

¶30

was admitted for hearing on the following two
substantial question of law :-

¶31

“(A) Whether the learned First
Appellate Court committed an illegality
in granting a relief, which was not
claimed by the Plaintiffs ?

¶32

(B) Whether the learned Appellate Court
committed illegality in holding the
Respondents No. 1 to 4 to be entitled
to succeed the share of Pushani Bai ?”

¶33

¶34

(For the sake of convenience, parties would be
referred hereinafter as per their status and
ranking shown in the suit before the trial
Court.)

¶35

2.The following genealogical tree will demonstrate
the relation between the parties :-

¶36

Jaipal
 Sitaram Mansharam
1st wife2nd wife
Indraniya BaiPushani Bai
Sukhdariya BaiGhurauRaghunath
(Daughter)Defendant No. 1Defendant No. 3
SahulalBabulalGendlalChhakelal
Plaintiff No. 1Plaintiff No. 2Plaintiff No. 3Plaintiff No. 4

¶37

3.The suit property admeasuring 13.28 acres in

¶38

total situated at Village Rajadeeh, P.S. Marwahi,

¶39

Tahsil Pendra Road was originally held by Sitaram
who had one daughter namely Sukhdariya Bai, born
out of his wedlock with his first wife Indraniya
Bai. The Four plaintiffs are sons of Sukhdariya
Bai and grandsons of Sitaram. Defendants No. 1
and 3 are sons of Mansharam who is the brother of

¶40

¶41

Sitaram, therefore, defendants No. 1 and 3 are
nephews of Sitaram.

¶42

4. Sitaram, vide registered sale deed dated 08/07/1969 (Ex. D/1), alienated the suit property in favour of defendants No. 1 and 3 and his second wife namely Pushani Bai. Thereafter, he died in the year 1972.

¶43

5. Plaintiffs filed a civil suit only for permanent injunction claiming that defendants be restrained from interfering with their possession stating inter alia that the sale deed dated 08/07/1969 (Ex. D/1) executed by Sitaram in favour of defendants No. 1 and 3 and his second wife Pushani Bai was a nominal sale deed and not a real and outright sale deed as there was no legal necessity for Sitaram to alienate the suit property in favour of the two defendants and Pushani Bai.

¶44

6.Defendants denied the plaint allegations and set
up a plea that the sale deed in question (Ex.
D/1) executed by Sitaram in favour of defendants
No. 1 and 3 and Pushani Bai is a real and
outright sale deed and not a nominal one. The
suit property was exclusively held by Sitaram,

¶45

¶46

therefore, he was fully competent to alienate the
suit property and plaintiffs have no right to
question the said sale deed.

¶47

7.Learned trial Court, after evaluation of oral and
documentary evidence on record, vide its judgment
and decree dated 16/03/1998, dismissed the suit
holding that plaintiffs are not entitled for
permanent injunction as defendants are in
possession of the suit property.

¶48

8.On appeal being preferred by the plaintiffs,
learned first appellate Court, vide its judgment
and decree dated 11/07/2006, principally
affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial
Court and held that the suit property was the
exclusive property of Sitaram and he, during his
lifetime, alienated the suit property in favour
of his nephews i.e. defendants No. 1 and 3 and
his second wife i.e. Pushani Bai and gave rest of

¶49

the land to his first wife Indraniya Bai and
since, Sitaram himself did not question the said
sale deed (Ex. D/1) in his lifetime, therefore,
after his death, plaintiffs cannot question the

¶50

alienation made by Sitaram in favour of
defendants No. 1 to 3 and Pushani Bai, but

¶51

¶52

thereafter, in paragraph 20 and 21 of its
judgment, the first appellate Court has held that
Pushani Bai has already died and after her death,
her share in the suit property would revert back
to her husband Sitaram, who is also deceased,
therefore, plaintiffs being the grandsons of
Sitaram, would succeed the suit property upto the
extent of Pushani Bai's share. The first
appellate Court further recorded a finding that
plaintiffs never sought the relief that they,
being the legal heirs of Sitaram, would succeed
the property of Pushani Bai, but in order to
avoid multiplicity of the suit, the said relief
is granted to the plaintiffs by virtue of Order 7
Rule 7 of the CPC, as such, plaintiffs will be
entitled for Pushani Bai's share i.e. 1/3rd

¶53

share in the suit property being 4.40 acres and
thus, allowed the appeal in part.

¶54

9.Questioning the said judgment and decree of the
first appellate Court, this Second Appeal under
Section 100 of the CPC has been preferred by the
defendants in which two substantial questions of

¶55

law were formulated and are set out in the
opening paragraph of this judgment. It is
appropriate to mention at this juncture that

¶56

¶57

during the pendency of this second appeal,
plaintiffs filed an application under Order 6
Rule 17 marked as I.A. No. 2 seeking amendment in
the plaint. This Court, vide order dated
01/04/2015, allowed that application and
accordingly, plaintiffs amended their plaint and
sought additional reliefs for declaration of
title and possession of Pushani Bai's 1/3rd share
in the suit property.

¶58

10.Mr. Rakesh Thakur, learned counsel appearing for
the appellants/defendants would submit that the
first appellate Court, after having principally
agreed with the finding recorded by the trial
Court that the suit property was exclusively held
by Sitaram and he, authorizedly and competently,
alienated the suit property in favour of his two

¶59

nephews i.e. defendants No. 1 and 3 and his
second wife Pushani Bai, was absolutely
unjustified in partly decreeing plaintiffs' suit
by holding that after the death of Pushani Bai,
her share would resort back to Sitaram and
plaintiffs being the legal heirs of Sitaram would
succeed the suit property upto the extent of
Pushani Bai's share, as neither there was any
pleading nor any relief sought in the suit for

¶60

¶61

declaration of title over Pushani Bai's share in
the suit property. Pushani Bai admittedly, died
way back in the year 1972 and plaintiffs filed
the suit before the trial Court on 26/07/1982
i.e. ten years after her death, therefore, the
first appellate Court has gravely erred in
granting the relief which was neither claimed by
the plaintiffs in the original plaint and nor it
was tried and defendants had no opportunity to
contest the said issue before the two Courts
below. In order to buttress his submission,
learned counsel for the appellants/defendants
would highly rely upon the decisions rendered by
the Supreme Court in the matters of Bachhaj
Nahar v. Nilima Mandal and Ors.1 and Ratanlal
alias Babulal Chunilal Samsuka v. Sundarabai
Govardhandas Samsuka (D.) Th. Lrs. And Ors.2 and
submit that the judgment and decree of the first
appellate Court upto that extent as recorded in
paragraphs 20 and 21 deserves to be set aside and
the second appeal deserves to be allowed.

¶62

11.Mr. R.N. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents/plaintiffs would submit that only the

¶63

1 AIR 2009 SC 1103

¶64

2 AIR 2017 SC 5797

¶65

¶66

relief of permanent injunction was claimed
originally in the suit, but later on, in the
first appellate Court application under Order 6
Rule 17 of the CPC was filed by the plaintiffs
and amendment was sought for declaration of title
and possession in the plaint and would submit
that on a mere technicality of pleading when the
substance of the thing is there and no prejudice
is caused to the other side, it is always open to
a Court to give a plaintiff such general or other
relief as it deems just to the same extent as if
it had been asked for and places reliance upon
the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the
matter of Dharmarajan and Ors. v. Valliammal and
Ors.3

¶67

12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶68

13. As mentioned above in paragraph 3 of this judgment, the suit property was held by Sitaram and admittedly, during his lifetime, he alienated the suit property in favour of his nephews i.e. defendants No. 1 and 3 and his second wife i.e.

¶69

3 2008 AIR SCW 155

¶70

¶71

Pushani Bai vide sale deed dated 08/07/1969 (Ex.
D/1) and it is the case of the defendants that
peaceful possession of the suit property was
delivered to them and since then, they have been
in possession of the suit property. Thereafter,
Sitaram and Pushani Bai died in the year 1972.

¶72

14.Plaintiffs brought the suit on 26/07/1982 only

¶73

for permanent injunction stating inter alia that the suit property admeasuring 13.28 acres in total sold by Sitaram in favour of defendants No. 1 to 3 and pushani Bai by the sale deed (Ex. D/4) is a nominal sale deed and it is not a real and outright sale, therefore, title has not passed upon defendants No. 1 to 3 and Pushani Bai, but the plaintiffs did not seek any relief for declaration of the said sale deed as null and void or cancellation of the said sale deed and only relief of permanent injunction was sought wherein learned trial Court held that the sale deed in question is not a nominal sale deed and it was a real and outright sale and dismissed their suit for permanent injunction, against which they preferred an appeal wherein learned first appellate Court fully agreed with the trial Court and held that the suit property was

¶74

¶75

exclusively held by Sitaram and he has rightly
and competently alienated the suit property in
favour of defendants No. 1 and 3 and Pushani Bai
and he did not question that sale deed during his
lifetime therefore, after his death, their
grandsons i.e. plaintiffs cannot be permitted to
question it. But surprisingly, the first
appellate Court further held that since one of
the purchasers Pushani Bai i.e. second wife of
Sitaram has already died, her share would resort
to her husband Sitaram and thereafter, to his
heirs i.e. plaintiffs which has also been
contended by Mr. Jha, learned counsel for the
respondents/plaintiffs and though, such a relief
has not been sought by the petitioners in their
suit, but yet to avoid the multiplicity of the

¶76

suit, plaintiffs are entitled for Pushani Bai's
share in the suit property i.e. 4.40 acres out of
the total of 13.28 acres.

¶77

15.The fact that deserves to be noticed is that the

¶78

suit was filed on 26/07/1982 i.e. 10 years after
the death of Pushani Bai and the plaintiffs were
well aware that Pushani Bai had died in the year
1972, but still while filing the suit, they only
sought relief of permanent injunction and claimed

¶79

¶80

that the alienation made by Sitaram in favour of
defendants No. 1 and 3 and Pushani Bai is void
and illegal and yet they did not challenge the
said sale deed. That was not found favour with by
the trial Court and it held that plaintiffs are
not entitled for permanent injunction as the
defendants are in possession of the suit
property.

¶81

16.It was not the case of the plaintiffs before
either of the two Courts below that since Pushani
Bai has died issueless, therefore, they, being
the legal heirs of her husband Sitaram, would
succeed to Pushani Bai's share of the suit
property and neither there was a suit for
declaration of title on Pushani Bai's share. The
plaintiffs rather laid a hostile claim against
Pushani Bai that the sale deed dated 08/07/1969
(Ex. D/1) has not conferred any title upon her
and they even sought invalidation of the said
sale deed by way of application for amendment in
the plaint filed before the first appellate
Court, but the first appellate Court declined to
allow their application for amendment and did not
permit the plaintiffs to challenge the sale deed
at a later stage in the first appeal, as such,

¶82

¶83

the said sale deed (Ex. D/1) has become final as
the first appellate Court clearly held that the
plaintiffs cannot be permitted to question the
sale deed executed by Sitaram in favour of
defendants No. 1 and 3 and Pushani Bai.

¶84

17.The Supreme Court, in the matter of Bachhaj Nahar
(supra)highlighted the object and purpose of
pleadings and held as under :-

¶85

“9. The object and purpose of pleadings
and issues is to ensure that the
litigants come to trial with all issues
clearly defined and to prevent cases
being expanded or grounds being shifted
during trial. Its object is also to
ensure that each side is fully alive to
the questions that are likely to be
raised or considered so that they may
have an opportunity of placing the
relevant evidence appropriate to the
issues before the court for its
consideration.ThisCourthas

¶86

repeatedly held that the pleadings are
meant to give to each side intimation
of the case of the other so that it may
be met, to enable courts to determine
what is really at issue between the
parties, and to prevent any deviation
from the course which litigation on
particular causes must take.”

¶87

¶88

Their Lordships further held that relief can be
granted only with reference to prayers made in
the pleadings and held as under :-

¶89

“16...It is fundamental that in a civil
suit, relief to be granted can be only
with reference to the prayers made in
the pleadings. That apart, in civil
suits, grant of relief is circumscribed
by various factors like court fee,
limitation, parties to the suits, as
also grounds barring relief, like res
judicata, estoppel, acquiescence, non-
joinder of causes of action or parties
etc., which require pleading and proof.
Therefore, it would be hazardous to
hold that in a civil suit whatever be
the relief that is prayed, the court
can on examination of facts grant any
relief as it thinks fit.”

¶90

18. Similarly, in the subsequent decision rendered in Ratanlal (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held that the parties to a suit are always governed by their pleadings and any amount of evidence or proof adduced without there being proper pleading is of no consequence and will not come to the rescue of the parties.

¶91

19. At this stage, Mr. Jha, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs would submit that he has

¶92

¶93

already amended the plaint pursuant to the order
dated 01/04/2015 passed by this Court and has
sought relied of grant of Pushani Bai's share to
the plaintiffs.

¶94

20.Though the plaintiffs have been allowed to amend
the plaint by this Court, but that is of no use
or benefit to the plaintiffs. It is not the case
that on the basis of subsequent events, amendment
has been sought in the plaint. Pushani Bai
admittedly, died much prior to the date of filing
of the suit. Plaintiffs, for the reasons best
known to them, did not file the suit for
declaration of title and did not even seek relief
of setting aside the sale deed (Ex. D/1) or
declaration of sale deed as null and void which
he took during the pendency of first appeal by
filing an application for amendment which was not
found favour with by the first appellate Court
and ultimately, it was rejected by the first
appellate Court. The plaintiffs cannot be
permitted to suddenly take a u-turn in the midst
of the litigation, firstly, taking calculated
chance to only seek permanent injunction and when
their suit for permanent injunction stood
dismissed, then they sought relief of declaration

¶95

¶96

of title and possession of 1/3rd share in the suit
property that after the death of Pushani Bai,
they being her legal heirs, are entitled to
succeed to the 1/3rd share of Pushani Bai. The
amendment already incorporated in the plaint
would not be of any consequence because the
original suit was for permanent injunction
simpliciter. Initially, while filing the suit,
plaintiffs could have filed a comprehensive suit
for declaration of title stating that Pushani Bai
has already died and they being the legal heirs
of her deceased husband Sitaram, would succeed to
her share of the suit property by virtue of
Section 15 of the Hindu succession Act, 1956,
therefore,declarationbegrantedand
consequently, relief of possession be also
granted in their favour which they did not choose
to prefer and only laid a suit for permanent
injunction, which when got dismissed by both the
Courts below, they sought relief of declaration
of title which in the considered opinion of this
Court cannot be granted as the plaintiffs wanted
to have the relief of declaration of title on the
basis of the fact that Pushani Bai died during
the pendency of the suit/appeal, which was

¶97

¶98

already available at the time of institution of
the suit and it was deliberately, for the reasons
not apparent on the face of the record, that the
plaintiffs only filed a suit for permanent
injunction simpliciter and not for declaration of
title of Pushani Bai's share as well and even
made hostile title against Pushani Bai. The first
appellate Court has clearly erred in invoking
Order 7 Rule 7 of the CPC granting relief of
declaration of title and recovery of possession
to the plaintiffs after having held that no
relief was sought by the plaintiffs in the suit
filed by them, but proceeded to grant such relief
on the basis of the subsequent event i.e. death
of Pushani Bai to avoid multiplicity of
litigation.

¶99

21.The Supreme Court, in the matter of Om Prakash
and Ors. v. Ram Kumar and Ors.4, has clearly held
that a party cannot be granted a relief, which is
not claimed, if the circumstances are such that
granting such relief would result in serious
prejudice to the interested party and deprive him
of valuable rights under the statute. In
reference to Order 7 Rule 7 of the CPC, it has

¶100

4 (1991) 1 SCC 441

¶101

¶102

further been held that plaintiff cannot base new
cause of action on plea of defendant unless he
amends the plaint or files separate proceedings.

¶103

22.In the matter of Satish Chand Makhan and Ors. v.

¶104

Govardhan Das Byas and Ors.5, the Supreme Court
has held that ordinarily a suit is tried in all
its stages on the cause of action as it existed
on the date of the institution, but the Court can
look to subsequent events, when the relief
claimed originally has (1) by reason of
subsequent change of circumstances become
inappropriate, or (2) where it is necessary to
take notice of the changed circumstances to
shorten litigation, or (3) to do complete justice
between the parties.

¶105

23.Furthermore, in the matter of Ganesh Shet v. Dr.
C.S.G.K. Setty and Ors.6, their Lordships of the
Supreme Court have held that under Order 7 Rule 7
of the CPC, the general or other relief, the
Court may deem fit, sought by plaintiff can be
granted only when it is consistent with the
pleading as well as proof.

¶106

5 (1984) 1 SCC 369

¶107

6 (1998) 5 SCC 381

¶108

¶109

24.In Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B. Goyal7, the
Supreme Court has clearly held that subsequent
events can be taken cognizance can be taken
cognizance of only if Court's attention is
invited towards them according to established
rules of procedure so that the prerequisites of
affording the opposite party an opportunity of
meeting the new case and of determining the real
questions in controversy are fulfilled by holding
the following :-

¶110

“11. The ordinary rule of civil law is
that the rights of the parties stand
crystalised on the date of the
institution of the suit and, therefore,
the decree in a suit should accord with
the rights of the parties as they stood
at the commencement of the lis. However,
the Court has power to take note of
subsequent events and mould the relief
accordingly subject to the following
conditions being satisfied : (i) that the
relief, as claimed originally has, by
reason of subsequent events, become
inappropriate or cannot be granted; (ii)
that taking note of such subsequent event
or changed circumstances would shorten
litigation and enable complete justice
being done to the parties; (iii) that

¶111

7 (2002) 2 SCC 256

¶112

¶113

such subsequent event is brought to the
notice of the Court promptly and in
accordance with the rules of procedural
law so that the opposite party is not
taken by surprise. In Pasupuleti
Venkateswarlu Vs. The Motor & General
Traders - AIR 1975 SC 1409 this Court
held that a fact arising after the lis,
coming to the notice of the Court and
having a fundamental impact on the right
to relief or the manner of moulding it
and brought diligently to the notice of
the Court cannot be blinked at. The Court
may in such cases bend the rules of
procedure if no specific provision of law
or rule of fairplay is violated for it
wouldpromotesubstantialjustice
provided that there is absence of other
disentitlingfactorsorjust
circumstances. The court speaking through
Krishna Iyer, J. affirmed the proposition
that court can, so long as the litigation
pends, take note of updated facts to
promote substantial justice. However, the
court cautioned: (i) the event should be
one as would stultify or render inept the
decretal remedy, (ii) rules of procedure
may be bent if no specific provision or
fairplay is violated and there is no
other special circumstance repelling
resort to that course in law or justice,
(iii) such cognizance of subsequent
events and developments should be

¶114

¶115

cautions, and (iv) the rules of fairness
to both sides should be scrupulously
obeyed.

¶116

12. Such subsequent event may be one
purely of law or founded on facts. In the
former case, the Court may take judicial
notice of the event and before acting
thereon put the parties on notice of how
the change in law is going to affect the
rights and obligations of the parties and
modify or mould the course of litigation
or the relief so as to bring it in
conformity with the law. In the latter
case, the party relying on the subsequent
event, which consists of facts not beyond
pale of controversy either as to their
existence or in their impact, is expected
to have resort to amendment of pleadings
under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. Such
subsequent event the Court may permit
being introduced into the pleadings by
way of amendment as it would be necessary
to do so for the purpose of determining
real questions in controversy between the
parties. In Messrs. Trojan & Co. Vs. RM.
N.N. Nagappa Chettiar - AIR 1953 SC 235
this Court has held that the decision of
a case cannot be based on grounds outside
the pleadings of the parties and it is
the case pleaded that has to be found;
without the amendment of the pleadings
the Court would not be entitled to modify
or alter the relief. In Sri Mahant Govind

¶117

¶118

Rao Vs. Sita Ram Kesho & Ors. - (1898) 25
Indian Appeals 195 (PC), their Lordships
observed that, as a rule, relief not
founded on the pleadings should not be
granted.

¶119

13. Power of the Court to take note of
subsequent events, specially at the
appellate stage, came up for the
consideration of a Full Bench of Nagpur
High Court presided over by Justice Sinha
(as His Lordship then was) in Chhote Khan
Vs. Mohammad Obedulla Khan, AIR 1953 Nag
361. Hidayatullah, J. (as His Lordship
then was) held, on a review of judicial
opinion, that an action must be tried in
all its stages on the cause of action as
it existed at the commencement of the
action. No doubt, Courts 'can' and
sometimes 'must' take notice of
subsequent events, but that is done
merely 'inter partes' to shorten
litigation but not to give to a defendant
an advantage because a third party has
acquired the right and title of the
plaintiff. The doctrine itself is of an
exceptional character only to be used in
very special circumstances. It is all the
more strictly applied in those cases
where there is a judgment under appeal.
His Lordship quoted the statement of law
made by Sir Asutosh Mookerjee, J. in a
series of cases that merely because the
plaintiff loses his title 'pendente lite'

¶120

¶121

is no reason for allowing his adversary
to win if the corresponding right has not
vested in the adversary but in a third
party. ”

¶122

25.The legal principle laid down in Om Prakash Gupta
(supra) has consistently been followed by the
Supreme Court in Ram Nibas Gagar (dead) by Lrs.
v. Debojyoti Das and Ors.8, Ram Kumar Barnwal v.
Ram Lakhan (dead)9, and Nidhi v. Ramkripal Sharma
(dead) through Lrs.10

¶123

26.In view of the above-stated analysis, I am of the
considered opinion that exercise of power by the
first appellate Court in holding that plaintiffs
are entitled for Pushani Bai's share in the suit
property i.e. 4.40 acres, despite having recorded
a finding that no relief was claimed by the
plaintiffs with regard to the share of deceased
Pushani Bai and granting the same by invoking
Order 7 Rule 7 of the CPC, is wholly
impermissible and bad in law which is not at all
attracted in view of the legal position noticed
herein-above. The first appellate Court has
gravely erred in granting relief to the
plaintiffs which was neither specifically pleaded

¶124

8 (2003) 1 SCC 472

¶125

9 (2007) 5 SCC 660

¶126

10 (2017) 5 SCC 640

¶127

by them and nor the other side was put to notice
about the same. As such, the two substantial
questions of law are answered in affirmative and
the judgment and decree of the first appellate
Court with respect to paragraphs 20 and 21 is
hereby set aside and the relief granted to the
plaintiffs thereby is also set aside.

¶128

27. Resultantly, the second appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above and plaintiffs' suit would stand dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).

¶129

28. Decree be drawn-up accordingly.

¶130

Sd/-

¶131

(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge

¶132

Harneet

Munni Bai @ Bisahin Bai v. Sahulal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munni Bai @ Bisahin Bai v. Sahulal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagdish Vs Ghasi

Tejram Patel Vs Yashwant Kumar

Manoj Tandi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shankar Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Budhu (Died) through Lrs. Vs Balram

Smt. Kawaljeet Kaur @ Khushbu Dua Vs Surjeet Dua