Or. 12, rule 6 and sec.11 of C.P.C = Order XII Rule 6 confers wide discretion on the Court to pass judgment either at the stage of the suit on the basis of admission of the facts made in the pleadings or otherwise, but the Court shall later on decide the other questions which arise for consideration in the Suit. It is equally well settled that the provision of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code is not a mandatory provision rather discretionary. While exercising power of passing judgment on admission made in the pleading or otherwise, the Court must keep the matter pending for adjudication so far as other issues are concerned. Indisputably, the plaintiff/respondent filed the suit for following relief:- i) A decree for possession of the suit property; ii) A decree for recovery of Rs.5,55,000/- and future damages @ Rs.15,000/- per month against the defendant. So far as the first relief for a decree for possession is concerned, we are in full agreement with the view taken by the High Court having regard to the question of ownership already decided in the earlier suit filed by the defendant/ appellant. The said issue need not have to be decided afresh and hence on the basis of the finding of ownership decided in favour of the plaintiff/respondent, the suit has to be decreed so far as the recovery of possession is concerned. So far as the second question with regard to the entitlement of the plaintiff/respondent to claim a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,55,000/- and future damages @ Rs.15,000/- per month is concerned, admittedly this question has not been decided either in the earlier suit or in this suit. In that view of the matter, decreeing the entire suit on the basis of ownership of the plaintiff/respondent already decided in the earlier suit, the decree for recovery of damages ought not to have been passed by the High Court.- the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit against the defendant/appellant who is her son, for recovery of possession and damages alleging that she had purchased the suit property out of her own fund and she is the absolute owner, but part of the property was under the illegal occupation of the appellant-defendant, who opposed the suit contending that the suit property was a Hindu Undivided Family property having been purchased in the name of the respondent using the funds of his grandfather, father and himself and not purchased by the respondent as she was a housewife having no income. Appellant-defendant further pleaded that though there was a dispute regarding his ownership and possession, the same was settled between all the family members vide compromise deed dated 22.10.1997. The respondent filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure for passing a decree in her favour on the ground that a suit for partition, which had earlier been filed by the appellant on the same ground i.e. that the suit property was a HUF property, had been dismissed by the District Court vide judgment dated 8.9.2003 and affirmed by the High Court vide judgment dated 12.9.2011 and the respondent contended that the same amounted to an unequivocal admission by the appellant that the respondent was entitled to possession. - 2015 SC msk law reprots

Or. 12, rule 6 and sec.11 of C.P.C = Order XII Rule 6 confers wide discretion on the Court to pass judgment either at the stage of the suit on the basis of admission of the facts made in the pleadings or otherwise, but the Court shall later on decide the other questions which arise for consideration in the Suit. It is equally well settled that the provision of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code is not a mandatory provision rather discretionary. While exercising power of passing judgment on admission made in the pleading or otherwise, the Court must keep the matter pending for adjudication so far as other issues are concerned. Indisputably, the plaintiff/respondent filed the suit for following relief:- i) A decree for possession of the suit property; ii) A decree for recovery of Rs.5,55,000/- and future damages @ Rs.15,000/- per month against the defendant. So far as the first relief for a decree for possession is concerned, we are in full agreement with the view taken by the High Court having regard to the question of ownership already decided in the earlier suit filed by the defendant/ appellant. The said issue need not have to be decided afresh and hence on the basis of the finding of ownership decided in favour of the plaintiff/respondent, the suit has to be decreed so far as the recovery of possession is concerned. So far as the second question with regard to the entitlement of the plaintiff/respondent to claim a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,55,000/- and future damages @ Rs.15,000/- per month is concerned, admittedly this question has not been decided either in the earlier suit or in this suit. In that view of the matter, decreeing the entire suit on the basis of ownership of the plaintiff/respondent already decided in the earlier suit, the decree for recovery of damages ought not to have been passed by the High Court.- the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit against the defendant/appellant who is her son, for recovery of possession and damages alleging that she had purchased the suit property out of her own fund and she is the absolute owner, but part of the property was under the illegal occupation of the appellant-defendant, who opposed the suit contending that the suit property was a Hindu Undivided Family property having been purchased in the name of the respondent using the funds of his grandfather, father and himself and not purchased by the respondent as she was a housewife having no income. Appellant-defendant further pleaded that though there was a dispute regarding his ownership and possession, the same was settled between all the family members vide compromise deed dated 22.10.1997. The respondent filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure for passing a decree in her favour on the ground that a suit for partition, which had earlier been filed by the appellant on the same ground i.e. that the suit property was a HUF property, had been dismissed by the District Court vide judgment dated 8.9.2003 and affirmed by the High Court vide judgment dated 12.9.2011 and the respondent contended that the same amounted to an unequivocal admission by the appellant that the respondent was entitled to possession. - 2015 SC msk law reprots

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)