Smt. Amarjit Kaur & Ors. vs Smt. Satnam Kaur & Ors.
2008 Latest Caselaw 2311 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                      RFA(OS) No. 70/2008

                                       Reserved on : December 12th, 2008

%                                Date of Decision : December 19th, 2008


Smt. Amarjit Kaur & Ors.                          ..... Appellants
                                      Through:    Mr. S.N. Kumar, Sr. Adv.
                                                  with Mr. K.B. Soni, Adv.

                                      Versus

Smt. Satnam Kaur & Ors.                           ..... Respondents
                                      Through:    Mr. Inder Bir Singh, Adv.
                                                  for R-2


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?     Yes.
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                                        Yes.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?                        Yes.



                               JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J

1. The Appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and order

dated 13th August, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge by

virtue of which their plaint has been rejected under Order VII Rule

11 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') on

the ground that the Appellants had not taken any leave or liberty

under Order II Rule 2 CPC, while instituting their earlier suit for

declaration.

2. Briefly stated the material facts of this appeal, as alleged by

the Appellants, are that two brothers, namely, Harbhajan Singh

and Pritam Singh had purchased property bearing No. F-67, Radio

Colony, Delhi - 110 009 vide registered Sale Deed dated 29th July,

1954. It is alleged that on 15th September, 1964 Harbhajan Singh

executed a Will in favour of his nephew Jatinder Pal Singh and

Smt. Satnam Kaur, while excluding his legal heirs. Subsequent to

the death of Harbhajan Singh in August, 1967, his Will was

probated on 28th May, 1971.

3. On 22nd March, 1972, Pritam Singh filed a suit for partition

being Suit No. 206 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'initial

partition Suit') in the District Court against legal heirs of Harbhajan

Singh without impleading either Jatinder Pal Singh or Smt. Satnam

Kaur. On 21st January, 1983 an ex-parte preliminary decree of

partition was passed by the Civil Judge.

4. When the Local Commissioner, appointed by the Civil Judge,

visited the premises on 27th August, 1983 for suggesting modes of

partition, it is alleged that Jatinder Pal Singh came to know for the

first time about the institution of the initial partition suit. On 2nd

September, 2003 Jatinder Pal Singh moved an application under

Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleadment in the initial partition suit.

5. On 30th May, 1985 Jitender Pal Singh filed a suit for

declaration in the District Court being Suit No. 606 of 1985

seeking a declaration that the preliminary decree passed in the

initial partition Suit be declared null and void.

6. On 3rd January, 1986 Jitender Pal Singh was impleaded as a

defendant by the Civil Judge in the initial partition suit. However,

on a Civil Revision (CR No. 92 of 1986) being filed against the

order of impleadment, this Court stayed the order of Civil Judge

dated 3rd January, 1986, but subsequently on 28th March, 2003 the

said Civil Revision petition was dismissed. Pursuant to this order,

the Plaintiff on 22nd November, 2003 filed an amended memo of

parties impleading Jatinder Pal Singh as a Defendant in initial

partition Suit.

7. Despite having been impleaded in the original partition suit

as well as having filed a suit for declaration, Jatinder Pal Singh on

13th April, 2005 filed a partition suit in this Court being CS(OS) No.

543 of 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'new suit').

Unfortunately, on 17th May, 2005 Jatinder Pal Singh died of cancer

and his legal heirs comprising of his wife and three daughters

were substituted as Plaintiffs in the new suit for partition. On

applications being filed by the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 under Order

VII Rule 11 CPC, the learned Single Judge on 13th August, 2008

passed the impugned order rejecting the plaint. The reason given

by the learned Single Judge for rejecting the plaint are reproduced

hereinbelow for ready reference :-

"12. It is evident that when the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, he was aware of his legal rights in respect of the suit property as well as the extent of his share, since the probate was granted in 1971 yet he did not choose to include the relief of partition. Now, even though there is no prescribed limitation for claiming partition, the provisions of Order II Rule 2 would squarely apply; the position clearer when the relief claimed is a declaratory one. The plaintiff has no-where disclosed about filing of the declaratory suit or its outcome. In the reply to the application filed for rejection of plaint, he is not denied that such suit was filed. He has also not produced any order of the trial court granting leave to file the present suit which relates to the same property and has intrinsic connection in the suit and the issues that would arise before the Court. The declaration sought by the plaintiff necessarily involves inquiry and trial of questions relating to the share the plaintiff would be entitled to, in the suit property. Therefore, he should have sought leave under Order II Rule 2 CPC. In the absence of such an order, the present suit is clearly barred in law........

14. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that in the absence of leave or liberty under Order II Rule 2, the plaintiff could not have filed the present suit. Therefore, it is clearly barred under Order VII Rule 11. This order will not however be construed as precluding the plaintiff from taking such steps or remedies, if available in law, in other pending proceedings. All rights of the parties are expressly reserved in that regard. The I.A. 6139/2005 and I.A. 9103/2005 are, therefore, allowed. The plaint is accordingly rejected, in these terms. No costs."

(emphasis supplied)

8. Mr. S.N. Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants,

that is the heirs of Jatinder Pal Singh, submitted that the bar of

Order II Rule 2 CPC would only apply, if the Plaintiff in the initial

suit for declaration had not filed its whole claim pertaining to that

cause of action. According to Mr. Kumar, Order II Rule 2 CPC only

mandated that on every cause of action, all reliefs have to be

claimed. He further submitted that the causes of action for filing a

suit for declaration were entirely different from the Appellants'

cause of action to seek partition of the suit premises. In support

of his submission, Mr. Kumar relied upon and referred to the

following passages in the judgments mentioned below :-

A) Bengal Waterproof Limited Vs. Bombay Waterproof

Manufacturing Company and Another reported in (1997) 1

SCC 99 wherein it has been held as under :-

"7. A mere look at the said provisions shows that once the plaintiff comes to a court of law for getting any redress basing his case on an existing cause of action he must include in his suit the whole claim pertaining to that cause of action. But if he gives up a part of the claim based on the said cause of action or omits to sue in connection with the same then he cannot subsequently resurrect the said claim based on the same cause of action. So far as sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 of Order 2 CPC is concerned, bar of which appealed to both the courts below, before the second suit of the plaintiff can be held to be barred by the same it must be shown that the second suit is based on the same cause of action on which the earlier suit was based and if the cause of action is the same in both the suits and if in the earlier suit plaintiff had not sued for any of the reliefs available to it on the

basis of that cause of action, the reliefs which it had failed to press in service in that suit cannot be subsequently prayed for except with the leave of the court. It must, therefore, be shown by the defendants for supporting their plea of bar of Order 2, Rule 2, sub-rule (3) that the second suit of the plaintiff filed in 1982 is based on the same cause of action on which its earlier suit of 1980 was based and that because it had not prayed for any relief on the ground of passing off action and it had not obtained leave of the court in that connection, it cannot sue for that relief in the present second suit. So far as this plea of the defendants is concerned there is a threshold bar against them for their failure to bring on record the pleadings of the earlier suit which unfortunately has not been properly appreciated by the courts below......."

(emphasis supplied)

B) Sandeep Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bajaj Auto Ltd.

& Ors. reported in AIR 2007 Supreme Court 2656

wherein it has been held as under :-

"16. As observed by the Privy Council in Payana v. Pana Lana (1914) 41 IA 142, the rule is directed to securing the exhaustion of the relief in respect of a cause of action and not to the inclusion in one and the same action or different causes of action, even though they arises from the same transaction. One great criterion is, when the question arises as to whether the cause of action in the subsequent suit is identical with that in the first suit whether the same evidence will maintain both actions. (See Mohammad Khalil Khan v. Mahbub Ali Mian (AIR 1949 PC 780)).

17. It would be appropriate to quote para 61 of the said judgment, which reads as follows:

61. (1) The correct test in cases falling under Order II Rule 2, is whether the claim in the new suit is in fact founded upon a cause of action distinct from that which was the foundation of the former suit (Moonshee Buzloor Fuheer v. Shumroonnissa Begum (1967)11 Moo I 551 : 2 Bar 259 (P.C.)).

(2) The 'cause of action' means every fact which will be necessary for the plaintiff to prove it traversed in order to support his right to the judgment (Real v. Brown (1889) 22 Q.B.O. 138 : 58 L.J. Q.B. 476).

(3) If the evidence to support the two claims is different, then the causes of action are also different. (Brunsoon v. Nurnphroy 18841 Q.B.O. 141. : 53 L.J.Q. B. 476).

(4) The causes of action in the two suits may be considered to be the same if in substance they are identical (Brunsoon v, Numphroy, supra).

(5) The cause of action has no relation whether to the defence that may be set up by the defendant nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. It refers...to media upon which the plaintiff asks the Court to arrive a conclusion in his favour. (Mst. Chand Kour v. Pratap Singh : (1887)15 IA 156). This observation was made by Lord Watson in a case under section 43 of the Act of 1880 (corresponding to Order II, Rule 2) where plaintiff made various claims in the same suit."

(emphasis supplied)

9. Mr. Kumar also submitted that it is settled law that 'fraud

unravels all' and as such the Appellants were entitled to ignore the

preliminary decree of partition passed in initial partition Suit and

that the same as null and void and to file their own independent

suit seeking partition. In this connection Mr. Kumar relied upon the

following judgments :-

     (i)         S.P. Chengal Varya Naidu Vs. Jagannath
                 reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1.
     (ii)        Indian Bank Vs. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd.
                 reported in AIR 1996 SC 2592
     (iii)       United India Insurance Co. Vs. Rajinder Singh
                 reported in AIR 2000 SC 1165
     (iv)        K. Raja Mouli Vs. A.V.K.N. Swamy reported in
                 (2001) 5 SCC 37
     (v)         Commissioner of Custom Vs. Candid Enterprises
                 reported in (2002) 9 SCC 764
     (vi)        Khetra Bassi Biswal Vs. Ajaya Kumar Baral &
                 Ors. reported in (2003) 10 Scale 186.
     (vii)       Hamza Haji Vs. State of Kerala reported in AIR
                 2006 SC 3028

10. On the other hand, Mr. Inder Bir Singh, learned Counsel

appearing for the legal heirs of Late Pritam Singh remphasised and

reiterated the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge for

rejection of the Appellants' plaint. He pointed out that the

Appellants in their new suit for partition had given four reasons for

filing the same, namely, that firstly the institution of the initial

partition suit was vitiated by fraud; secondly, the District Court

had no pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the initial partition suit;

thirdly, the Plaintiffs to the initial partition suit had not impleaded

the Appellants as parties though they were necessary parties

having a decree of probate in their favour; and fourthly, for the

last three and a half years the District Court had not proceeded

further with the initial partition suit and as a consequence, the

Appellants had been deprived of their legitimate rights in the suit

property.

11. Mr. Inder Bir Singh submitted that all the four reasons were

untenable in law as firstly, the Appellants had already been

impleaded in the initial partition suit, secondly, the District Court

vide its order dated 17th May, 2007 had already upheld its

pecuniary jurisdiction to deal with the initial partition suit, which

order has already attained finality, thirdly, the delay in

proceedings with the initial partition suit could never be a ground

for filing a fresh suit for partition, and fourthly, the Appellants had

already availed of two remedies for getting the preliminary decree

for partition set aside i.e. by filing an application for recall of the

said preliminary decree as well as by filing a suit for declaration

being Suit No. 606 of 1985.

12. Thus the admitted position that emerges is that on every

cause of action, all reliefs have to be claimed and further the

Appellants while filing their suit for declaration had not taken any

leave or liberty under Order II Rule 2 CPC to institute their new suit

for partition. The expression 'cause of action' means every fact

which will be necessary for the Plaintiff to prove in order to entitle

him to relief.

13. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and law, we are of the

view that the core issue and evidence is common in the suit for

declaration being Suit No. 606 of 1985 as well as in the Appellants'

application for recall of preliminary decree in Suit No. 202 of 1972

and the new suit for partition being CS(OS) No. 543/2005. We are

further of the opinion that even if it is assumed that the initial

preliminary decree of partition is null and void on the ground that

it is vitiated by fraud and proceedings in the said suit are dragging

on, the Appellants are not entitled in law to maintain two parallel

proceedings on the same issue. This is more so, when the

Appellants' application for the impleadment had been allowed in

the initial partition suit and their application for recall of the

preliminary decree is pending. It is pertinent to mention that it is

settled law that all parties to the partition suit are Plaintiffs and

are entitled to seek their respective shares in the property. (See

A. Thakurdas & Anr. Vs. A. Venilal & Ors. reported in AIR

1977 Karnataka 60 and P. Kunhammad & Ors. Vs. V.

Moosankutty & Ors reported in AIR 1972 Kerala 76).

14. We are also of the opinion that the test formulated by the

Privy Council in Bengal Waterproof Limited (supra) and

approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sandeep Polymers

(supra), is fulfilled in the present case as the Appellants' evidence

in support of its declaratory suit and the new suit for partition are

not different but identical. Even if we assume that the conduct of

the Respondents is fraudulent, then also it would not clothe or

empower the Appellants to file multifarious proceedings on the

same cause of action. Consequently, in our view, the Appellants

having not obtained leave and liberty under Order II Rule 2 CPC

while filing their suit for declaration being Suit No. 606 of 1985

could not have filed their new suit for partition.

15. Needless to say, as held by learned Single Judge, the

rejection of the Appellants' plaint would not be construed as

precluding the Appellants from taking such pleas or remedies, if

available in law, in other pending or subsequent proceedings.

However, keeping in view the long chequered history of this

litigation, we direct the District Court to proceed expeditiously

with the disposal of the initial partition suit as well as suit for

declaration being Suit No. 606 of 1985, provided there is no other

restraint or stay order passed by any other competent court. With

the above observations, the present appeal is disposed of.

MANMOHAN, J

MUKUL MUDGAL, J

December 19th, 2008 rn