(2012) 7 SCC 738 : JT 2012 (6) SC 450 : (2012) 6 SCALE 143 : 2012 AIR SCW

4248 : AIR 2012 SC (CIVIL) 2355

(SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)
A. NAWAB JOHN Appellant
Versus
V.N. SUBRAMANIYAM
Responde
nt
(BEFORE : P. SATHASIVAM AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.)
Civil Appeal Nos. 4838-4840 of 2012 (Arising Out of Slp (Civil) Nos.20349-20351 of
2007), Decided On : 03-07-2012
Transfer of Property Act, 1882Section 52Lis PendensWhen a pendente lite
purchaser seeks to implead himself as a party-defendant to suit, such application should
be liberally consideredEffect of Section 52 is not to render transfers affected during
pendency of suit by a party to suit void but only to render such transfers subservient to
the rights of parties to such suit, as may be, eventually, determined in the suitTransfer
remains valid subject to result of suitPendente lite purchaser would be entitled to or
suffer same legal rights and obligations of his vendor as may be eventually determined
by Court. (Paras 17 and 19)
2012 AIR SCW 5419 : AIR 2012 SC (CIVIL) 2831 : JT 2012 (10) SC 97 :
(2012) 9 SCALE 582

(SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)
ABDUL REHMAN AND ANOTHER
Appellant
Versus
MOHD. RULDU AND OTHERS
Respondent
(BEFORE : P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOI J.)
Civil Appeal No, 7043 of 2012 (Arising Out of Slp (C) No. 6324 of 2008, Decided On :
27-09-2012
Civil Procedure Code, 1908Order 6, Rule 17Amendment of plaint
Parties to suit are permitted to bring forward amendment of their pleadings
at any stage of proceeding for the purpose of determining real question in
controversy between themCourts have to be liberal in accepting same if
same is made prior to commencement of trialIf such application is made
after commencement of trial, Court has to arrive at a conclusion that in spite
of due diligence, party could not have raised the matter before
commencement of trial. (Para 7)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908Order 6, Rule 17Amendment of plaint
RejectionOriginally, appellants have approached trial Court for permanent
prohibitory injunctionEntire factual matrix for relief sought for under
proposed amendment had already been set out in unamended plaint
Challenge to voidness of sale deeds was implicit in factual matrix set out in
unamended plaintRelief of cancellation of sale deeds as sought by
amendment does not change nature of suitApplication for amendment
allowed. (Paras 9 to 16)
Counsel For Parties:

AIR 2000 SC 3587 : (2000) 9 SCC 335 : JT 2000 (9) SC 35

(SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)
BIJOYO KUMAR PATTANAIK Appellant
Versus
BASANTA KUMAR PATNAIK AND OTHERS Respondent
(BEFORE: S. B. MAJMUDAR AND U. C. BANERJEE, JJ.)
Civil Appeal No. 1267 of 1988, Decided on: 04-04-2000.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908Order 1, Rule 10Transposition of partiesSuit for
partitionMunsif Court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain suitPlaintiff
instead of praying for return of plaint for presentation to proper Court sought
transposition of certain plaintiffs as defendantsConsidering fact that suit was pending
and if transposition is allowed the suit would again fall within pecuniary jurisdiction of
Munsiffs CourtTo avoid zig-zag procedure, Supreme Court allowed to transpose
original plaintiffs 2 to 5 as Defendants 4 to 7 exercising power under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India and to amend plaint.
--------------------------------------------------------
UNREGISTERED PARTITION DEED NOT ADMISSIBLE - SC
In the decision reported in Bhagwan Das and Others v. Girja Shanker and Another, JT 2000(Suppl.1) S.C. 246, the
appellant claimed exclusive possession of property on the basis of an unregistered partition deed and the respondents
therein claimed possession along with the appellants/ plaintiffs. The said unregistered partition deed was held to be
inadmissible in evidence and the question was held in favour of the defendants/ respondents. In appeal, the
Honourable Apex Court held that since the document relied on by the appellants therein was unregistered, it was
rightly held by the High Court as inadmissible in evidence.

ONCE DOCUMENT IS ADMITTED CANNOT BE QUESTIONED LATER
Apex Court in the case Javer Chand v. Pukhraj Suranareported in AIR 1961 SC 1655, a Constitution Bench judgment.
The relevant portion of the report reads to this effect:- "Once the Court rightly or wrongly, decides to admit the
document in evidence, so far as the parties are concerned, the matter is closed. ........... Once a document has been
admitted in evidence, as aforesaid, it is not open either to the trial Court itself or to a Court of appeal or revision to go
behind that order. Such an order is not one of those judicial orders, which are liabe to be reviewed or revised by the
same Court or a Court of superior jurisdiction."

Plea of res-judicata in suit for injunction and in title suit
Reference may be made to the decision of this court in the case of Sulochana Amma vs.
Narayanan Nair, [(1994) 2 SCC 14 Para 9] on the issue between the same parties or
persons under whom they claim title or litigating under the same title, it operates as a
res-judicata. A plea decided even in suit for injunction touching the title between the
same parties, would operate as res judicata :
It is a settled law that in a suit for injunction when title is in issue, for the purpose of
granting
injunction the issue directly and substantially
arises in that suit between the parties. When the same is put in issue in a later suit based
on title between the same parties or their privies in a
subsequent suit, the decree in injunction suit
equally operates as a res judicata."
39)To the same effect, the judgment of this court in the case of Sulochana Amma vs.
Narayanan Nair, [(1994) 2 SCC 14 Para 9] in which it has been held that the issue
between the same parties or persons under whom they claim title or litigating under the
same title, it operates as a res
judicata. A plea decided even in suit for injunction touching the title between the same
parties, would operate as res judicata
Entries in revenue records do not confer any title
In Sajana Granites (12 supra), a Division Bench of this court made an observation that
"the entries in revenue records do not confer any title." This court made such an
observation having noticed that the document Ex.A11 therein is not the patta, which is
the primary evidence, and is only an extract from the revenue register, it is secondary
evidence on the issue relating to grant of patta. Since no record from the office of the
Settlement Officer was summoned to show that the Settlement Officer examined the
history of the suit property, the court refused to grant declaration of title merely basing
upon Ex.A11 an extract from the Revenue Register."

Andhra High Court
Union Of India (Uoi) Represented ... vs Vasavi Cooperative Housing ... on 6
September, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002 (5) ALD 532, 2002 (5) ALT 370




Objection by third party challenging delivery of possession in execution of decree

Equivalent Citation: 2004(1)ALD1(SC), 2004(1)BLJR183, (SCSuppl)2004(1)CHN182,
2004(1)CTC55,
[2004(1)JCR124(SC)], 2003(9)SCALE783, (2003)12SCC219