Civil Appeal No. 7043 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6324 of 2008). Case: Abdul Rehman and Anr. Vs Mohd. Ruldu and Ors.. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Civil Appeal No. 7043 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6324 of 2008) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Manmeet Arora and Kavita Wadia, Advs. and For Respondents: Debasis Misra and Jitendra Kumar, Advs. |
| Judges | P. Sathasivam and Ranjan Gogoi, JJ. |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Section 151 - Order 6 Rule 17 - Order 39 Rule 1 - Order 39 Rule 2 |
| Citation | 2013 (1) ALD 1 (SC), 2012 (95) ALR 602, 2012 (6) ALT 41 (SC), 2012 (6) AWC 5448 SC, 2012 (6) AWC 5448 SC, 2013 (1) CDR 182 (SC), 2013 (1) CHN 40, 115 (2013) CLT 624, 2012 (5) CTC 803, JT 2012 (10) SC 97, 2013 (1) LW 213, 2012 (4) RCR 481 (Civil), 2013 (118) RD 374, RLW 2013 (1) SC 29, 2012 (9) SCALE 582, 2012 (11) SCC 341, 2013 (1) WBLR 43 (SC) |
| Judgement Date | Thursday September 27, 2012 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
P. Sathasivam, J.
-
Leave granted.
-
This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 13.11.2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No. 4486 of 2007 whereby the High Court dismissed the revision filed by the Appellants herein and confirmed the order dated 06.06.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Malerkotla in an application filed by the Appellants herein for amendment of the plaint.
-
Brief Facts:
(a) Originally one Jhandu, resident of Village Haider Nagar, was the owner and in possession of land admeasuring 53 bighas 11 biswas at village Haider Nagar, Tehsil Malerkotla and 33 bighas 15 biswas situated at Village Binjoli Kalan, Tehsil Malerkotla. Jhandu died leaving behind Khuda Bux as his son and Aishan and Kaki as his daughters. The mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in favour of Khuda Bux alone being his son.
(b) Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid mutation, Kaki and Aishan (daughters of Jhandu) filed Suit No. 280/162 against Khuda Bux claiming 9/36 share each in the said lands before the subordinate Judge, Ist Class, Sangrur, Camp at Malerkotla. By order dated 20.12.1971, the sub-Judge dismissed the said suit.
(c) Challenging the said judgment, Kaki and Aishan filed an appeal being Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1972 before the District Judge, Sangrur. Vide order dated 04.07.1972 passed by the District Judge, the said appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. According to the terms of the compromise, it was agreed that Khuda Bux shall be entitled to retain possession of land admeasuring 34 Bighas 13 Biswas in village Haider Nagar with the condition that he and his wife Ramzanan will receive the produce of the suit land during their life time but they will have no right to alienate it by way of sale, mortgage or any other form. After the death of Khuda Bux and his wife, the said land would be divided among the four sons of Khuda Bux in equal shares. The remaining land owned by Khuda Bux in Binjoli and Haider Nagar was partitioned by him amongst his four sons in the manner set out in the compromise deed.
(d) On 12.09.1986, Khuda Bux executed a sale deed transferring ownership and possession of land admeasuring 17 Bighas and 10 biswas in village Haider Nagar in favour of the Appellants herein. Challenging the said sale deed, the other two sons and two daughters of Khuda Bux filed a suit before the sub-Judge, Malerkotla. The sub-Judge dismissed the said suit and set aside the sale deed dated 12.09.1986. The said order was further confirmed in appeal.
(e) After the death of Khuda Bux, Ramzanan - his wife filed Suit No. 308 of 2002 before the Civil Judge, Malerkotla for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction against all her children. In the above suit, on 24.12.2002, she also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") seeking an injunction against the Appellants herein from interfering with her possession. The said application was dismissed. Against the dismissal of the said application, she filed an appeal being C.M.A. No. 7 of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
C.R.P. (PD) No. 3759 of 2011 and M.P. No. 1 of 2011. Case: Rajapunnisa Vs Meharajan Begum and K. Narayanan. High Court of Madras (India)
...the petitioner relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (Abdul Rehman and another vs. Mohd. Ruldu and others) 2012 (5) CTC 803 wherein in para No. 15, it was held that all amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controver......
-
C.R.P. (PD). No. 3772 of 2013 and M.P. No. 1 of 2013. Case: C.R. Umapathy Vs D. Sathyanarayana Chettiar. High Court of Madras (India)
...K. Ravichandrabaabu, J ... 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order ... , he relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in 2003 (10) SCC 242 (Chandan rika Vs. Banti Bhuyan) and 2012 (5) CTC 803 (SC) (Abdul Rehman Vs. Mohd. Ruldu) ... Rajinder Singh Anand (2008 (5) SCC 117), Rajkumar Gurawara Vs. S.K.Sarwagi ... ...
-
C.R.P.(MD) No. 1973 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2011. Case: Mariammal Vs Subramanian. High Court of Madras (India)
...Ammal and 3 Others Vs. Narasimha Naicker and Another [2000 (III) CTC 389]; (iii) Abdul Rehman and Another Vs. Mohd.Ruldu and Others [2012 (5) CTC 803]; (iv) Muthu and Another Vs. Padma [2009 (6) MLJ 224]. All these Judgments will not advance the case of the respondents, as the facts in thos......
-
Writ-C No. 26029 of 2014. Case: Amar Singh Vs Yogender Singh. High Court of Allahabad (India)
...liberally man those which are sought to be made after the commencement of the trial. 7. Supreme Court in Abdul Rehman v. Mohd. Ruldu, 2013 (118) RD 374 (SC) held that it is clear that parties to the suit are permitted to bring forward amendment of their pleadings at any stage of the proceed......
-
C.R.P. (PD) No. 3759 of 2011 and M.P. No. 1 of 2011. Case: Rajapunnisa Vs Meharajan Begum and K. Narayanan. High Court of Madras (India)
...the petitioner relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (Abdul Rehman and another vs. Mohd. Ruldu and others) 2012 (5) CTC 803 wherein in para No. 15, it was held that all amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controver......
-
C.R.P. (PD). No. 3772 of 2013 and M.P. No. 1 of 2013. Case: C.R. Umapathy Vs D. Sathyanarayana Chettiar. High Court of Madras (India)
...K. Ravichandrabaabu, J ... 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order ... , he relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in 2003 (10) SCC 242 (Chandan rika Vs. Banti Bhuyan) and 2012 (5) CTC 803 (SC) (Abdul Rehman Vs. Mohd. Ruldu) ... Rajinder Singh Anand (2008 (5) SCC 117), Rajkumar Gurawara Vs. S.K.Sarwagi ... ...
-
C.R.P.(MD) No. 1973 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2011. Case: Mariammal Vs Subramanian. High Court of Madras (India)
...Ammal and 3 Others Vs. Narasimha Naicker and Another [2000 (III) CTC 389]; (iii) Abdul Rehman and Another Vs. Mohd.Ruldu and Others [2012 (5) CTC 803]; (iv) Muthu and Another Vs. Padma [2009 (6) MLJ 224]. All these Judgments will not advance the case of the respondents, as the facts in thos......
-
Writ-C No. 26029 of 2014. Case: Amar Singh Vs Yogender Singh. High Court of Allahabad (India)
...liberally man those which are sought to be made after the commencement of the trial. 7. Supreme Court in Abdul Rehman v. Mohd. Ruldu, 2013 (118) RD 374 (SC) held that it is clear that parties to the suit are permitted to bring forward amendment of their pleadings at any stage of the proceed......