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

Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - permission of court for selling minor property by natural guardian- In the present case, though it is stated that the property has been sold for the proper benefit of the minors, their protection, education and marriage,there is nothing on record to suggest that previous permission of the Court was obtained by the natural guardian before transfer by sale in question.-2015 S.C.(2013) MSKLAWREPORTS24

Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 deals with the powers of natural guardian of a Hindu minor and the said section mandates that the natural guardian has power to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realisation, protection or benefit of the minor's estate, etc. The provision reads as follows: Sec. 8 . Powers of natural guardian.- (1) The natural guardian of a Hindu minor has power, subject to the provisions of this section, to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realization, protection or benefit of the minor's estate; but the guardian can in no case bind the minor by a personal covenant. (2) The natural guardian shall not, without the previous permission of the court,- (a) mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise any part of the immovable property of the minor; or (b) lease any part of such pro...
Read more

APEX COURT DIGEST 2016 - 1

T.P.Act - Registered sale deed coupled with an agreement of re conveyance - for a transaction to constitute mortgage by conditional sale, it is necessary that the condition is embodied in the document that purports to effect the sale . But not when   Sale Deed dated 14.06.1972 and  Agreement of re conveyance dated 14.06.1972 having been executed on the same day and both ought to be read together and when the Sale Deed was executed only as a security for the loan and it was never the intention of the 1st respondent-plaintiff to convey the suit property. Since 1st respondent- plaintiff has paid back the loan amount i.e. Rs.6,700/- as is evident from the subsequent Agreement dated 05.06.1974, the Courts below rightly recorded the concurrent findings of fact that  Sale Deed is not binding on the 1st respondent-plaintiff. Once repayment was made, the 1st respondent-plaintiff was entitled to the declaration as prayed for no need to ask for  cancellatio...
Read more

Section 25(1) of the Customs Act-exempted from payment of customs duty and additional duty leviable under the Customs Tariff Act.-Under Notification No.17/2001, that the benefit of duty exemption is available only for the import of the plant in full either in CKD or SKD condition. - The subject import can be considered only as a part of the plant.-Therefore, the goods under import are not eligible for the duty exemption as provided under the Notification No.17/2001.-what was imported was not a hot mix plant but only certain parts of such plant and, therefore, the exemption notification would not apply. -It is settled law that statements made to an Officer of Customs are admissible in evidence under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.In the present case, both the oral evidence and the documentary evidence ultimately lead to the same conclusion: namely, that what was imported was not a hot mix plant that was complete in itself. - But not an unassembled Hot Mix Plant -have no application to an exemption notification which is issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act. - 2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPROTS

The appellant entered into a Joint Venture  Agreement  with  M/s            Shapoorji  Pallonji  &  Company  Limited  for  the  purpose   of            construction of roads in the State of Andhra Pradesh.  The Joint            Venture  was  awarded  a  contract  by  the  National   Highways            Authority of India for construction of roads as a  part  of  the            Golden Quadrilateral, Phase-2 Project in Andhra Pradesh. The description reads  :  "Hot                  mix plant batch type with electronic controls and bag  type                  filter arrangement 160 tons per hour capacity." ...
Read more