The building companyprised a ground floor, two upper floors and several separate out houses, sheds and garages.
118 of 1973.
The suit was dismissed and the plaintiff Satyavati carried an appeal to the Division Bench.
Unfortunately, the Division Bench, without proper appreciation, has interfered by misdirecting itself.
On 4.9.1973, Mahavirprasad filed his written statement companytesting the Suit No.l 18/73 on various grounds challenging the validity of the sale and the plaintiffs title.
Leave was granted in Bajranglals appeal on 4.10.1993 while leave was granted in Shyamsundars case on 17.12.1993.
The companyduct of Ramprasad and the plaintiff Satyavati, as found from the facts adduced before the trial Judge, fully justify the companyclusions of the single Judge as to the fraud perpetrated.
It was by this time revealed that one of the persons in whose name the warrant of attachment has been issued, namely, Ramvallabh, had already died.
He also companytended that the Bombay Municipal Corporation was a necessary party and the suit was bad for number joinder of a necessary party.
As an employee of this companycern he companytinued to attend to the job of payment of municipal taxes in respect of Hari Niwas.
The families of Shivchandrai and Ramvallabh were occupying Hari Niwas as their family house.
8425/93 on 27.5.1993.
On 15.7.1972, Suit No.
metres at Malviya Road, Ville Parle, Bombay in the year 1928.
On 23.12.1968, a sum of Rs.
On 29th/30th December, 1969 Shivchandrai and Mahavirprasad respectively replied to the BMC objecting to the sums demanded on the ground that their appeals with regard to increase in rateable value to which they had objected were pending.
On 27.5.93, S.L.P. No.8425 of 1993 was moved by Bajranglal against the judgment of the Division Bench and an interim stay was granted by this Court.
On 6.1.1970, the BMC informed Mahavirprasad that the auction sale would be held on 12.1.1970 if the dues demanded were number paid before 10.1.1970.
118/73.
The Municipal Corporation claims to have pasted such numberices without the presence of any independent witness as directed.
In the first place, the property tax in respect of Hari Niwas was being paid by the firm M s. Gorakhram Gokalchand in which Shivchandrai and Mahavirprasad were partners.
The Bombay Municipal Corporation hereinafter BMC used to issue separate property tax bills in respect of these five demarcated properties.
Sometime in 1973 74, Ramprasad closed his office which was situated in Hari Niwas.
Even otherwise, it is urged that the present appeal must be dismissed as otherwise it may give rise to companyflicting decrees.
On 19.10.1970, the BMC replied to letters dated 3.8.1970 of Shivchandrai and Mahavirprasad reiterating the old dues under the warrant of attachment as well as the new taxes due, without specifying any amount of companyts or giving the final statement of account as demanded by them in their letters.
No companyts were specified, quantified or demanded by this letter cum bill.
118/73.
By this letter, the BMC threatened to sell the property in exercise of its power under section 206 of the BMC Act.
After the death of Shivchandrai on 7.6.1971, all the heirs of Shivchandrai were entitled to claim ownership of the property, and Ramprasad had a duty to inform the BMC that Shivchandrai had died on 7.6.1971 and that the property should be shown in the joint names of all the heirs and legal representatives of Shivchandrai together with Ramprasad.
At the earlier auction sale on 14.7.1969 the reserved bid fixed was Rs.
This proposal was forwarded to the Municipal Commissioner, though at this time numberreserve bid was fixed.
16,000.
The Division Bench, reversed the Single Judges judgment and decreed the suit by its judgment.
Both Ramprasad and Satyavati plaintiff had opportunity of cross examination of Mahavirprasad when he tendered evidence in Suit No.
The evidence led by the plaintiff merely shows that Janardan Dhuri was the highest bidder.
118/73, the learned single Judge, Suresh, J. proposed to implead the BMC as a party to the suit.
The property tax in respect of Hari Niwas building used to be paid by the said partnership firm.
The said writ petition was admitted on 24.12.1998 by the High Court and is pending before the High Court.
Two separate decrees were prepared.
Counsel for the defendant Bajranglal made a request that he be transposed as plaintiff in Suit No.
Haribux was the third brother, whose son was Nand Kishore and who in turn had a son by name Shashikant.
218/73 stated that he had vaguely learnt from Janardhan Dhuri about the auction.
7 was against the order setting aside his election, while first respondents Appeal No.
This letter was received by the Superintendent K Ward, S.D. Madiwala, and the Assessment Department of the Municipal Corporation on 6.10.1971 and 7.10.1971 respectively.
218/73 and 118/73.
At that time, the reserved bid fixed by the BMC was Rs.
The application made for bringing the legal heirs on record came to be rejected.
Curiously, the plaintiff Satyavati, who claimed title to the property, led numberevidence whatsoever in her support except relying upon the certificate of sale.
Respondents companytend that inasmuch as the appeal filed by Shyamsunder, original defendant number5, being C.A. No.7490/93 was dismissed by this Court on 15th January, 2001 for number prosecution, the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court operates as res judicata.
it was therefore, held that the appeal of A was companypetent.
Facts Two brothers, Shivchandrai and Ramvallabh, purchased a plot of land measuring 1063 sq.
While the tenant failed to move an appeal, the sub tenant filed an appeal against the decree.
The office of the said firm was situated at Choksi Chamber, Zaveri Bazar, Bombay.
In 1962, one of the six sons of Shivchandrai, namely, Chandra Prakash, shifted his residence to Bandra and has been living separately.
It further held that number only was the fraud number pleaded, but numberissue in companynection with fraud had been framed by the trial judge and yet he proceeded to make the finding that the auction sale was vitiated by fraud.
The learned single Judge, therefore, rightly companycluded on the facts that this was a deliberate failure on the part of Ramprasad in order to cause wrongful gain to himself and a wrongful loss to his brothers.
This companytention was upheld for the reason that the appeal filed in this Court was a single appeal by all the three sureties, and one of them having died and his legal representatives number having been brought on record, the decree became final as against such a surety.
The present appeal is only at the instance of the sole appellant Bajranglal, who was Defendant No.8 in the original suit filed by the Respondent No.
118/73 was filed by Satyavati for delivery of the possession of property.
In all, there were five separate structures having 5 different Municipal Ward and Street numbers, namely, 781 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 and 5 .
Consequently, the proposed auction sale was cancelled.
The companynsel for the plaintiff sought and was granted adjournment for putting his client Satyavati in the box as witness for examination on 29.6.1988.
Referring to the pleas and particulars of fraud stated by Mahavirprasad in his Suit No.218/73, as well as Mahavirprasads written statement filed in Suit No.
8 Bajranglal and Defendant No.
It was open to the sub tenant to companytend that the decree was wrong as it was passed on an erroneous finding and the sub tenant companyld challenge the decree on any available ground.
At an earlier stage a warrant of attachment had been issued and the property was sought to be put up for auction by the BMC.
A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the first respondent that the appeal was incompetent as barred by the principle of res judicata as the appellant did number appeal against the order of the High Court in his own Appeal No.7, the dismissal of which by the High Court companyfirmed the order of the Election Tribunal setting aside the election of the appellant.
Appellants Appeal No.
On 30.9.1971 and 2.10.1971 the companycerned officials of the Municipal Corporation were directed by the Assistant Assessor and Collector to give numberice of the auction sale by pasting Notices on the suit premises in the presence of two independent witnesses, preferably tenants.
After Shivchandrais going away to Madras, Mahavirprasad and Ramprasad started attending to the management of the property and payment of municipal taxes upon receipt of the municipal bills.
This appeal was dismissed on 21.1.1987 by a Division Bench of the High Court holding that Bajranglals right to institute a suit was an independent separate remedy for claiming the same relief against the plaintiff as had been claimed in Suit No.
On 4.8.1970, the auction sale, which was scheduled to be held, was adjourned sine die on the ground that there was numberbidder and a new date of auction was fixed as 26.11.1970.
2,00,000, even at the time of filing of the suit, was number challenged.
On 10.9.1985, Mahavirprasad suddenly moved the learned single Judge Pendse, J for withdrawal of his suit and this prayer was allowed by the learned single Judge.
Thereafter, the plaintiff neither examined any other witness number herself.
His cross examination, however, remained incomplete and was postponed to the next day.
On 18.9.1973 Bajranglal D 8 Shyamsunder D 5 and Kailashchand D 3 filed their respective individual written statements companytesting the Suit No.118/73 filed by the plaintiff Satyavati.
There was neither a numberice from the BMC in their names, number did Ramprasad who was in management of the property, let them know of the same.
In this fashion, the Corporation, for the first time, worked out the dues of Rs.12765.77 and demanded an amount of Rs.5192 Rs.
On 4.10.1969, a warrant of attachment in the names of Shivchandrai and Mahavirprasad was issued for realisation of a sum of R.5996.29 towards municipal taxes for the period 1.10.1965 to 31.3.1969.
On 9.9.1985, Bajranglal filed his written statement supporting fully Mahavirprasads Suit No.218/73 challenging the sale of suit property to Satyavati.
Ramvallabhs family companysisted of his wife Durgabai.
7573.64 paid Rs.
On 12.7.1972, Bajranglal, Mahavirprasad and others received a telegram from Satyavati the plaintiff for immediate handing over of possession of the suit property to her alleging that she had become sole owner of the property at the auction sale held by the Municipal Corporation on 7.10.1971.
On 9.9.1985 Mahavirprasad adduced oral evidence in his suit No.218/73 before the learned single Judge.
118/73 recording detailed findings that the sale and alleged title claimed by the plaintiff were illegal, null and void and number est on various grounds.
16,000 on behalf of the plaintiff Satyavati.
Satyavati R. Ruia R 8 Appellant Plaintiff Maintainability of the present appeal Res Judicata At the outset, the respondents companytend that the present appeal is number maintainable and that, if maintainable, propriety demands that it should be dismissed as otherwise it may give rise to companyflicting decrees in the same cause of action.
5972.52 total of 5 bills issued in respect of structures of Hari Niwas as property tax for the period from 1.4.1963 to 31.3.1968.
The evidence on record also shows that Ramprasad was also throughout present during the companyrt proceedings in Suit No.
218/73 to enable him to prosecute the suit, which had originally been filed by Mahavirprasad.
It is urged that the judgment and decree has become final as against Bajaranglal and all other defendants in the original suit.
On 26.11.1970, Shivchandrai and Mahavirprasad paid a lumpsum amount of Rs.
it was Mahavirprasad and Ramprasad who were attending to the work of payment of taxes in respect of the said property.
In 1939 Ramvallabh died leaving behind his wife Durgabai, one daughter and son Mahavirprasad.
On 5.10.1971, Mahavirprasad learned about the auction sale and wrote to the Municipal Corporation that as Shivchandrai had died on 7.6.1971, the demand numberice should be addressed to all the companyowners of the property and in the meantime the auction sale should number be held.
However, on this occasion numberreserve bid was fixed by the Municipal Commissioner.
The firm had its office on the ground floor of Hari Niwas.
This evidence of Bajranglal D 8 was number challenged at all in his cross examination.
On 3.8.1970, both Shivchandrai and Mahavirprasad sent a reminder to the BMC to send a final statement of account to enable them to make the necessary payment of taxes and requested that the property number be auctioned in the meantime.
The family tree of the companytending parties is as under GENEALOGY Shivchandrai Ramvallabh Haribux D 7.6.71 D 1939 Rukmanibai D4 Durgabai Nandkishore D 25.12.87 D 1990 D 1969 Mahavirprasad 1 daughter Chandrakala D 30.6.89 I I I 3 Kailash Shyamsunder Ramprasad Chandra Bajranglal daughters Chand Prakash I wifeSatyavati Shashikant Ravikant 6 daughters D died In 1931, Shivchandrai and Ramvallabh companystructed a building known as Hari Niwas on the said land.
On 2/5.4.1993, a Division Bench of the High Court headed by Pendse, J. allowed plaintiffs appeal No.213/88, set aside the judgment of Suresh, J. and decreed the plaintiffs suit for possession against Bajranglal and others.
218/73 because he had got some amount from Ramprasad and he was number likely to get anything from Bajranglal.
On 22.11.1968, the Commissioner of the BMC issued a Warrant of Attachment in the names of Shivchandrai and Ramvallabh for recovery of a sum of Rs.
5 Shyamsunder , they were both examined and cross examined.
2004 3 SCR 373 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SRIKRISHNA, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court granting a decree for the relief of possession of the suit property together with a direction for inquiry into mesne profits, by reversing the judgment of the single Judge who had dismissed the original suit.
The auction sale is alleged to have taken place on 7.10.1971 therefore, the value of the property on the date of sale companyld number have been less then Rs.
This request was, however, rejected and the permission sought was declined by the learned single Judge.
The municipal bills were received either by Janardan Dhuri or Mahavirprasad.
Until his departure to Madras, Shivchandrai was carrying on a business in partnership with Mahavir Prasad in a firm known as Gorakh Ram Golak Chand in Bombay.
On 12.1.1970, Shivchandrai and Mahavirprasad paid a sum of Rs.4073.64 as against Rs.5996.29 demanded under the warrant of attachment and agreed to pay the balance later.
Bajranglal stated in his written statement, as also in his evidence, that after receipt of a telegram he had companytacted Mahavirprasad and Ramprasad.
Satyawati, and seeking a declaration that Smt.
1988 companynsel for plaintiff stated that he did number desire to examine the plaintiff as a witness.
30,600.
118/73 were companycerned.
On 24.7.1984,.the BMC filed its written statement companytesting Mahavirprasads suit No.218/73.
8 original plaintiff .
118/73, Bajranglal adopted the pleas raised therein.
This Court held that there was one decree and therefore the appellant was entitled to have it set aside although thereby the tenant who had number appealed would also be freed from the decree.
On 14.7.1969, the Municipal Corporation decided to auction the suit property and fixed a reserve bid for the auction sale at Rs.30,600.
Satyavati R. Ruia Defendant No.l Shashikant Nandkishore Ruia No.2 Mahavirprasad Ramvallabh Ruia No.3 Kailashchand Shivchandrai Ruia No.4 Smt.
The trial companyrt rejected the objections raised by the sureties and this order was companyfirmed by a single Judge of the High Court.
Both the appellant and the first respondent being aggrieved went up in appeal to the High Court.
In the first place, the certificate of sale was number in her name.
The partnership employed an employee by name Janardhan Dhuri.
The Election Tribunal, however, did number entertain the first respondents prayer to declare him as duly elected.
B C filed separate appeals.
Special leave and interim stay was granted and this Court directed that the said matter be tagged with the present appeal.
Shashikant with his father Nandkishore moved out to Madras and settled there.
This proposal was vehemently opposed by the plaintiff and due to the opposition the learned single Judge did number press the proposal.
Shivchandrai died in Madras on 7.6.1971.
The numbere book maintained under the Regulations and the record produced did number show that Janardan Dhuri had disclosed that he was bidding as an agent for the plaintiff Satyavati.
The Municipal bills were being received by Mahavirprasad and sometime by Janardan Dhuri.
On 3.8.1988 the learned single Judge Suresh ,J. ordered the Municipal Corporation to produce the companyplete records companynected with the sale.
After Shivchandrai shifted to Madras in 1964.
This judgment is distinguishable on its facts as there was only one appeal filed by all three sureties.
1969 2 SCC 70, this Court had occasion to examine the scope of application of Order XLI Rule 4 of the CPC in a situation like the present one.
On 25.6.1970, a letter of demand was sent by the BMC only in the name of Shivchandrai demanding balance amount due under the warrant of attachment Rs.5996.29 4073.64 Rs.1922.65 and new taxes for the period 1.4.69 to 31.9.1970 equal to Rs.2593.56, in all making a total of Rs.4516.21.
The decree made by the High Court qua other respondents original defendants has attained finality since defendants 1 4, 6 and 7 in that suit did number challenge the judgment dated 2/5.4.93 made by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court and the companysequent decree.
Hence, it was companytended that the appellant companyld number question the companyrectness of the finding that he held an office of profit which was the basis of the dismissal of Appeal No.7.
3500 towards the dues.
The High Court held that inasmuch as one of the appeals was time barred, the first appeal was barred by res judicata.
Thus, it was held that the appeal of one of the defendants was companypetent, even though the other defendant who was equally situated had filed numberappeal.
A preferred an appeal from one of these decrees in time paying the full companyrt fee.
The said defendants objected to the execution of the decree against them on several grounds.
The learned single Judge rightly pointed out that there was numbermaterial whatsoever on record to companye to the companyclusion that Janardan Dhuri had paid the sum of Rs.
v. M s. Jagdish Parshad Kishan Chand and Ors.,
On 15.7.1975, Satyavati filed a written statement companytesting Mahavirprasads Suit No.218/73.
On 28.7.
Hence, the warrant of attachment was cancelled on 11.9.1969.
On 17.11.1969, the orders pursuant to the warrant of attachment were sent by the companycerned officers of the BMC to Mahavirprasad at his address at Jethwa Niwas, Bombay and also to Shivchandrai at his address both at Madras and Zaveri Bazar, Bombay.
For the first time, the Corporation specified the companyts at Rs.3299.40, an amount of Rs.1722.05 towards companyts of proceedings and further specified that an amount of fresh tax of Rs.3470.08 for the period 1.4.1969 to 31.3.1971 was due, though it did number form part of the warrant of attachment.
In the present case, Bajaranglal and Shyamsunder were defendants in the Original Suit No.
In Karam Singh Sobti and Am .v.
one daughter and his son Mahavirprasad.
842/85 challenging the order of Pendse, J. declining the request for transposition.
As the respondents in the appeal before the Division Bench both Bajranglal and Shyamsunder were aggrieved by the decree against them.
Bajranglal companytinued to have physical occupation of the suit property ever since then and companytinues to remain in occupation till date.
On 9.6.1971 the BMC addressed a letter in the sole name of Shivchandrai who had already died on 7.6.71 without addressing any letter to Mahavirprasad or any other person on his behalf.
Hence, the auction sale fixed was cancelled.
While allowing the appeal or otherwise interfering with the decree or order appealed against, the appellate companyrt may pass or make such further or other, decree or order, as the case would require being done, companysistently with the findings arrived at by the appellate companyrt.
In Pandit Sri Chand and Ors.
On behalf of Defendant No.
1966 3 SCR 451, the plaintiff had companymenced his suit against three sureties who were defendants in a suit.
Shivchandrais family expanded in due companyrse of time and companysisted of his wife Rukmanibai, three daughters and six sons.
30,600 as on 14.7.1969.
Sometime in 1933, Bajranglal, the appellant, was born to Shivchandrai in Hari Niwas itself.
It is rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge that, under the Municipal Regulations applicable to such auction sales, if a person is purchasing as an agent for another he is required to file papers giving full name, address and description both of himself and his principal.
4073.64 3500 as against the amount of Rs.5996.29 demanded under the warrant of attachment.
while Shyamsundar filed his appeal No.
The original defendants 1, 2 and 7 did number participate in the proceedings before the High Court and the suit was companytested only by defendant number5 Shyamsunder and defendant number8 Bajaranglal the present appellant .
On 18.8.1998, Bajranglal filed Writ Petition No.2540/98 before Bombay High Court for quashing the sale made by the BMC in favour of the plaintiff after disclosing the fact of pendency of the present appeal before this Court.
12765.77 7573.64 as still due and payable.
The records produced by BMC show that Janardan Dhuri was the highest bidder.
218/73 was filed on the original side of the Bombay High companyrt by Mahavirprasad and his mother Durgabai challenging 1 the auction sale alleged to have taken place on 7.10.1971 and 2 the certificate of sale dated 14.1.1972 alleged to have been issued therein to Smt.
Subsequently, Bajranglals appeal was numbered as Civil Appeal No.5293 while Shyamsundars appeal was numbered as Civil Appeal No.7490/93.
The suit was decreed by the trial companyrt.
Shri Pratap Chand and Anr.,
218/73.
Both were disposed of by the companymon judgment by the High Court which dismissed Appeal No.7 but allowed respondents Appeal No.8 and declared him to be duly elected.
The single Judge after a detailed analysis of the evidence pointed out as to how Ramprasad had companynived with the officers of the BMC to grab the suit property, which was worth lakhs of Rupees, for a paltry sum of Rs.
However, on that date the plaintiff did number appear as witness and adjournment was sought on medical grounds.
The application for Speaking to the Minutes by Bajranglal was number entertained by the Division Bench.
Bajranglal filed Appeal No.
In 1964, Shivchandrai also moved over to Madras to settle with his nephew Nandkishore.
The reasoning of the Division Bench appears to be that, as Bajaranglal companyld number have instituted a suit for challenging the auction sale and the sale certificate, equally, he companyld number raise a defence to the suit and plead that the auction sale was invalid.
Mahavirprasad in his evidence in Suit No.
It was also held that Order XLI Rule 4 of the CPC would number apply here.
8 was against number declaring him elected.
For obvious reasons, numbersuch thing was done by Ramprasad.
16,000.
The three sureties moved this Court by special leave petition in which leave was granted to them.
On 9.8.1988, in response to a witness summons issued on behalf of Bajranglal, one S.D. Madiwala, Superintendent K Ward appeared as a witness DW 2 and stated in his deposition that he had brought the entire records and that there was numberother file companynected with the sale of Hari Niwas.
On 25.12.1987, Rukmanibai D 4 died while she was living in Hari Niwas.
On 25.8.1988, the learned single Judge Suresh, J. delivered judgment dismissing Suit No.
On 17.12.1993, Shyamsunder D 5 also filed S.L.P. C No.18492/93 against the Judgment of the Division Bench dated 2/5.4.1993.
1922.65 Rs.
2250 was paid towards property tax and some dispute was raised with regard to the balance.
Upon scanning the records of Municipal Corporation the learned single Judge numbered that there was a proposal for sanction of sale Ex.27 dated 8.9.1971 which only said that it was proposed to sell the property without a reserve bid.
indicate the array of parties in this appeal In Present Appeal As Before Division Bench in appeal No.
They also examined one Shrikrishna Dhondu Madiwale, Deputy Assessor and Collector, Assessment Department of the Western Suburb of the Municipal Corporation.
The estoppel is number created by the decree, but can only be created by the judgment and that there was numberquestion of application of principle of res judicata.
The parties to the suit were as under Plaintiff Smt.
Satyavati was number the sole owner of suit property but that Mahavirprasad and Durgabai were also companyowners of the suit property i.e. Hari Niwas .
Thus, there were enough pleadings with regard to the fraudulent manner in which the property was sought to be grabbed by Ramprasad through his wife Satyavati, who was plaintiff in suit number 118/73.
That the value of the property was Rs.
M was number served with numberice as a result of which the appeal came to an end as far as M was companycerned.
In 1969 70, Janardan Dhuri joined the sole proprietorship companycern of Ramprasad with trading name Gorakh Ram Haribux, which had its office on the ground floor of Hari Niwas.
Thereafter, the plaintiff examined only Yashwant Shankar Pawar, Managing Clerk, Legal Department of the BMC for producing the certificate of the sale dated 14.1.1972.
On 14.7.1988 the learned single Judge directed the BMC to produce its records with regard to the auction sale of Hari Niwas.
In Ratanlal Shah v. Firm Lalmandas Chhadammalal and Anr.,
It is necessary to recall some of the findings made by the single Judge which appear to be borne out by the evidence on record.
218/73.
This witness categorically admitted that the certificate of sale had been prepared by the Assessment Department after which it came to him and he knew numberhing else in respect of the said document.
Thereafter, he joined as an employee of the firm of Gorakhram Haribux which was owned by Ramprasad.
118/73.
In this case there was a joint decree against two defendants R M. R alone appealed to the High Court by impleading M as second respondent in the appeal.
Both the defendants were aggrieved by the decree of eviction and each had his own right to appeal from that decree.
One of the sureties died even before the record of the appeal was transmitted to this Court.
He also pointed out that the Corporation had still number accounted for the amounts already paid, and, therefore, numberaction companyld be taken which would bind the companyowners.
On 15.7.1972, Mahavirprasad sent a legal numberice to the Municipal Corporation and to Satyavati denying that she had become sole owner of the property in question.
On 8.9.1971, the companycerned officer of the BMC sent a proposal for sanction of auction sale of the suit property towards the demanded sum of Rs.5192.13 as total dues.
Although the balance of taxes due under the earlier warrant of attachment was only Rs.
This suit was initially filed in a city civil companyrt, but was returned by that companyrt due to under valuation and refiled on the original side of the Bombay High Court.
He also detailed several particulars of fraud vitiating the sale and pleaded that the suit of the plaintiff Satyavati was bad for number joinder of the Municipal Corporation and prayed for dismissal thereof.
After the period of limitation had expired, A preferred an appeal from the other decree also.
One decree of eviction was passed by the trial judge against both tenant and sub tenant who were defendants.
5996.29 4073.64 , an additional amount of Rs.
The plaintiff Satyavati filed an appeal No.213/88 against the judgment on 5.10.1988.
Section 11 of the CPC would bar the Court from trying any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue between the same parties or between the parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title in a Court companypetent to try such subsequent suit or suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, has been heard and finally decided by such Court.
1577.35 was paid by them.
These are the material facts culled out from the record of the present appeal.
It is number possible to accept that the principle of res judicata will apply to bar the appeal.
213/89 In suit number 218/73 Bajranglal Shivchandrai Ruia Appellant R 8 D 8 Shashikant Nandkishore Ruia R l R l D l Mahavirprasad Ramvallabh Ruia R 2 R 2 D 2 Kailashchand Shivchandrai Ruia R 3 R 3 D 3 Smt.
Satyavati, the plaintiff in the suit, which has given rise to the present appeal, is the wife of Ramprasad who is one of the sons of Shivchandrai.
This letter was personally delivered by him in the office of the BMC with an acknowledgement given by Superintendent K Ward on 6.10.1971, and by the Assessment Department on 7.10.1971.
1964 4 SCR 647, a proceeding under the Delhi Rent Control Act for eviction had been filed against the tenant and sub tenant on the ground that the tenant had, without the companysent of the landlord, sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the rented premises.
218/73, and that, since this right was lost, Bajranglal companyld number be permitted to get over the laches and to subvert the period of limitation by allowing his application for transposition in Mahavirprasads Suit No.
The learned single Judge, however, permitted the parties to lead evidence with regard to the validity of the sale made by the BMC.
On 15.1.2001 Shyamsunder D 5 s appeal No.7490/93 was dismissed for default in companypliance with the office report dated 16.11.2000.
The evidence on record unmistakeably shows that Mahavirprasad and Bajranglal were number aware of the date of auction sale having been fixed as 7.10.1971.
The learned single Judge carefully examined all the documents produced and arrived at the companyclusion that numberreserve bid had been fixed for the auction sale which took place on 7.10.1971, companytrary to the Regulations.
218/73 and to rely thereupon.
All this material was companyrectly analysed by the learned single Judge who drew justified companyclusions therefrom.
Despite two more adjournments granted, the plaintiff did number appear as a witness, number was any other evidence led by the plaintiff to support the sale.
On 4.10.93, leave was granted and the S.L.P was companyverted into Civil Appeal No.5293/93.
The BMC official, Madiwala, of the office of Deputy Assessment and Collector, produced two files companytaining relevant papers of the matter.
The following chart will.
30,600.
An appeal under the letters patent was dismissed in limine.
The plaintiff also led numberevidence in support of her case.
Janardan Dhuri was assisting them in the management of property as an employee of the said firm till about 1969 70.
Fraud The Division Bench of the High Court took the view that in the written statement filed by Bajaranglal in the suit there was numbercomplaint of fraud and numberparticulars whatsoever of fraud were pleaded.
On 21.1.1991, this Court dismissed Special Leave Petition No.1154 of 1988 filed by Bajranglal, challenging the order of the Division Bench of the High Court in the matter of transposition in plaintiffs Suit No.
He had also said that he and Mahavirprasad were number on talking terms after the withdrawal of the suit.
This Court in Mahabir Prasad supra distinguished the judgment in Rameshwar Prasad, 1964 1 SCR 549 as a ease in which all the plaintiffs whose suits had been dismissed had filed an appeal and thereafter one of them being dead and his heirs were number brought on record.
The present appellant Bajranglal filed SLP No.
On 2.10.1972 Suit No.
Though Dhuri was still under the employment of Ramprasad, and used to attend the hearing during the trial when the evidence was recorded, he was number examined by the plaintiff.
Therefore, he had written a letter on 5.10.1971 to the BMC pointing out that Shivchandrai had already died on 7.6.1971 and that numbernotice had been served on the company owners.
On 28.6.1988, during the trial of Suit No.
While dismissing an appeal and though companyfirming the impugned decree, the appellate companyrt may still direct passing of such decree or making of such order which ought to have been passed or made by the companyrt below in accordance with the findings of fact and law arrived at by the companyrt below and which it would have done had it been companyscious of the error companymitted by it and numbericed by the appellate companyrt.
The Constitution Bench of this Court was of the view that two appeals arose out of one proceeding, the subject matter of each appeal being different.
SLP 18492/93 on 17.12.1993.
In the appeal, both Bajranglal and Shyamsunder were respondents.
Rukmanibai Shivchandrai Ruia R 4 R 4 D 4 Shyamsunder Shivchandrai Ruia R 5 R 5 D 5 Ramprasad Shivchandrai Ruia R 6 R 6 D 6 Chandraparkash Shivchandrai Ruia R 7 R 7 D 7 Smt.
Bajranglal, in particular, defended the suit by companytending that the sale was a nullity, as it was ultra vires the legal provisions and on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, number service of demand numberice on all the heirs and companyowners, irregularities and breach of law and fraud.
While in the case before this Court, there was an order against all the decree holders but all of them had number appealed.
