First Appeal No. 1194/2011. Case: Hafizulla and Ors. Vs Puran Chand Jain and Ors.. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)

Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 1194/2011
CounselFor Appellant: Party-in-Person and For Respondents: Pranay Verma, Advocate
JudgesRajendra Menon, Actg. C.J. and Anurag Shrivastava, J.
IssueCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order XXIII Rule 1(4); Sections 11, 2(12), 96; Karnataka Rent Control Act, 2001 - Sections 21, 45; Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 - Sections 12(1), 12(1)(f), 23(a), 44; Partition Act, 1893 - Section 4; Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 111(d), 4, 44, 44(2)
Judgement DateFebruary 01, 2017
CourtHigh Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)


Anurag Shrivastava, J.

  1. Being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 02.12.2011, passed by III Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 3-A/2010, the appellants/plaintiffs have preferred this First Appeal under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, whereby the learned trial Court has dismissed the suit for possession and mesne profit with regard to the disputed premises.

  2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in narrow compass are that the plaintiff Hafizulla and Smt. Hameeda Begum filed Civil Suit No. 3-A/2010 before the trial Court claiming that they are owner and landlord of house bearing Nos. 667, 667/1 to 667/3 situated at Kotwali ward, Jabalpur known as "Kudarat Manzil" which is a double story building. This suit house was let out to Sheikhar Chand Jain by registered lease deed dated 01.05.1968 for a period of 10 years @ Rs. 150/- per month rent for non-residential purpose. The plaintiffs had instituted the Civil Suit No. 147-A/1998 against the original tenant Sheikhar Chand Jain for his eviction from suit house on various grounds under Section 12(1) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act. During pendency of the said ejectment suit, in the life time of original tenant Sheikhar Chand Jain, his son Inder Kumar Jain (Defendant No. 3) had purchased undivided share of the suit house from the two co-owners Smt. Sona Bi and Smt. Begum Bi by registered sale deed dated 03.02.1982 and 20.09.1982 respectively. In Civil Suit No. 147-A/1988 the Court vide judgment dated 30.07.1981 found the bonafide need of the plaintiff No. 1 Hafizulla established, but suit was dismissed on the ground that plaintiff No. 1 is not absolute owner of the suit house, therefore, the suit is not maintainable. The plaintiff preferred First Appeal and after its dismissal Second Appeal No. 813/1995 was filed before High Court.

    This Second Appeal was also dismissed vide judgment dated 12.05.1997 on the ground that the defendant No. 3 Inder Kumar Jain had purchased the undivided share of two co-owners and became co-owner of the suit house, hence the suit for eviction of a co-owner by another co-owner from joint property is not maintainable. Against this, plaintiff filed SLP(C) No. 16299/1997 before Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was also dismissed on 15.09.1997 in limine.

  3. It is further pleaded by appellant/plaintiff that after dismissal of SLP the plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 11-A/2002 against the defendant for declaration, that two sale deeds dated 03.02.1982 and 20.09.1982 executed in favour of defendant No. 3 Inder Kumar Jain as null and void and also ejectment of defendant/tenants from suit house. During pendency of this suit plaintiff No. 2 Smt. Hameeda Begum filed a separate suit before Rent Control Authority RCA Case No. 2A/90(7) 97-98 under Section 23-A of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, for eviction of defendant on the ground of bonafide requirement of her son Mohd. Anwar. The Rent Control Authority considering earlier judgment in Civil Suit No. 147-A/1998 dismissed the suit on the ground of res-judicata. Against this order, Smt. Hameeda Begum preferred a Civil Revision No. 1676/2001 before High Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 25.02.2003 on the ground that the judgment of S.A. No. 813/1995 has effect of res-judicata and the suit is not maintainable.

  4. It is further averred that in Civil Suit No. 11-A/2002 the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) Jabalpur, relying upon the finding of Second Appeal No. 813/1995 as well as Civil Revision No. 1676/2001 dismissed the suit on the ground of res-judicata. Against this, the plaintiffs filed First Appeal No. 451/2003 before High Court. This appeal was allowed by Division Bench of this Court and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs by holding that the decision of Civil Suit No. 147-A/1985 and S.A. No. 813/1995 does not operate as res-judicata and decree of eviction of defendants from suit house was passed.

  5. It is further pleaded that, against the order dated 25.02.2003 of Civil Revision No. 1676/2001, the plaintiff Hameeda Begum filed Civil Appeal No. 1180/2006 before Supreme Court. Similarly, against the order dated 27.02.2009 passed by High Court in F.A. No. 451/2003, the defendant filed Civil Appeal No. 5312/2010. Hon'ble Supreme Court by passing a common order on 13.07.2010 allowed the defendants' appeal C.A No. 5312/2010 and by setting aside the judgment and decree passed in F.A. No. 451/2003, and thereby dismissed the plaintiffs' suit on the ground of res-judicata and constructive res-judicata with an observation that the decision of Promod Kumar Jaiswal v. Bibi Husn Bano and Others (2005) 5 SCC 492 will not apply as precedent in inter party suit. Hon'ble Supreme Court vide common order dated 13.07.2010 dismissed Smt. Hameeda Begum's Civil Appeal No. 1180/2006 on the ground of res-judicata.

  6. It is further pleaded by plaintiffs that the findings of Supreme Court passed in C.A. No. 1180/2006 and C.A. No. 5312/2010 vide common dated 13.07.2010 confirming findings of S.A. No. 813/1995 in judgment dated 12.05.1997 holding that the defendant No. 3 Inder Kumar Jain became the co-owner, hence the suit is not maintainable against the co-owner is coram non-judice. Since, SLP (C) No. 16299/1997, which was preferred by plaintiffs against the judgment dated 12.05.1997 of S.A. No. 813/1995 was dismissed by Supreme Court on 15.09.1997 in limine. Therefore, this judgment shall not operate as res-judicata. It is also settled law that the principle of res-judicata or constructive res-judicata is not applicable, if the decision has been rendered in rent cases. The binding precedent laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Promod Kumar Jaiswal v. Bibi Husn Bano (2005) 5 SCC 492 is fully applicable in the instant suit.

  7. It is further pleaded that, suit house is bonafidely required by plaintiff No. 1 Hafizulla and his son Mohd. Shafiqullah, who are Advocate for their Office for non-residential purpose. The suit house was let out on 01.05.1968 for a period of 10 years for non-residential purpose in which defendant running Electrical goods shop having occupied total area 2025 Sq.ft. The suit house is situated at market place having rental value at present Rs. 2000/- per day. The defendants become tress passer after expiry of lease period. Therefore, by filing instant suit the plaintiffs sought the relief of declaration that the defendant No. 1 to 3 are tenant/co-tenant in suit house and decree of eviction under Section 12 (1) (f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 and mesne profit @ Rs. 1000/- per day from the date of filing of the suit till eviction of tenants/defendants.

  8. In the written statement filed by the defendants, it is denied that the suit house is a dwelling house. It is further pleaded that the disputed house was the property of Late Sheikh Dullu. After his death, his property was partitioned among his sons in 1951 and the suit house was given in share of his sons Shamsuddin and Barkatullah. In this partition, the half north part of the suit house came in share of Barkatullah and remaining south part was given to Shamsuddin. After the death of Shamsuddin, his son Jalaluddin inherited his share in suit house and later on, he had gifted his share to his wife Begam Bi by executing Tamleefnama dated 17.04.1974 with the consent of Barkatullah. Thus, Begam Bi was the owner of half south portion of the house and she was receiving the rent @ Rs. 75/- per month from Sheikhar Chand Jain for her part of house.

  9. It is further averred by the defendants that Barkatulla, Amina Bi, Jalaluddin and Hamida Bi had granted the lease of building "Kudarat Manzil" to Sheikhar Chand Jain by registered lease deed dated 01.05.1968. All the lessors instituted a Civil Suit No. 147-A/1988 against the original tenant Sheikhar Chand Jain for eviction on various grounds under Section 12(1) Accommodation Control Act. Later on name of the lessors other than Hamida Bi and Hafizulla were deleted from the array of the plaintiffs. During pendency of the suit, original tenant Sheikhar Chand Jain died and his LRs were brought on record as successor tenants. One of LRs of Sheikhar Chand Jain, his son Inder Kumar Jain had purchased the share of Smt. Begam Bi vide sale deed dated 03.02.1982 and share of Smt. Sona Bi vide sale deed dated 20.09.1982 in suit house. It is claimed that by virtue of these sale deeds, Inder Kumar Jain became the co-owner of the suit house and retains possession in the suit house as co-owner.

  10. The defendants have admitted that the Civil Suit No. 147-A/1988 was dismissed by the trial Court on 30.07.1991, thereafter, first appeal No. 61-A/1995 and Second Appeal No. 813/1995 filed by the plaintiffs also dismissed. Against this plaintiffs filed SLP before Apex Court which was dismissed in limine.

  11. In written statement the defendants have not denied the averments in plaint regarding ejectment suit filed by Smt. Hameeda Bi before Rent Control Authority under Section 23(a) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act and Civil Suit No. 11-A/2002 filed by the plaintiffs before Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Jabalpur and its results. It is stated that, the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A No. 1180/2006 and C.A. No. 531/2010 dated 13.07.2010 finally resolved the controversy. It is held that the decision of Civil Suit No. 147-A/1985 and S.A. No. 813/1995 dated 12.05.1997 have the effect of res-judicata in present suit. The plaintiff has filed so many suits and proceedings for eviction of the defendants repeatedly on same grounds and misusing the process of Court. By giving details of various litigation in paras No. 1(e) to 1(m) of the written statement, the defendants submit that all the issues raised in present suit has already been decided finally in earlier litigation, therefore, the present suit is not maintainable on the ground of res-judicata. Since, defendant No. 3 Inder Kumar Jain is possessing the suit house as co-owner...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT