Chebrol Sriramalu vs Vakalapudi Satyanarayana
- SCC(2013) 9 SCC 404
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a defendant has admitted in evidence that the property the subject of a suit for specific performance is ancestral or joint family property, and the trial court has failed to frame an additional issue regarding the status of the property despite its clear relevance to the suit, the trial court's omission in not framing such issue constitutes a material procedural defect requiring remand. The determination of whether property is ancestral or joint family property is a wholly relevant and significant issue that must be properly adjudicated before a suit for specific performance can be effectively disposed of.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
2. The Plaintiff/ Respondent herein had filed a Suit for Specific Performance of the Agreement of Sale, dated 23.08.1997. The Trial Court by its order dated 20.07.2004 has decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, the Defendant/ Appellant had preferred an appeal before the High Court. The High Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 22.07.2010 has dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the same, the Defendant/ Appellant is before us in this appeal, by Special Leave.
3. Heard Shri Basava Prabhu Patil, learned senior counsel for the Defendant/ Appellant and Shri S.N. Bhat, Learned counsel for the Plaintiff/ Respondent.
4. Shri Patil, learned senior counsel takes us through the evidence deposed by P.W.1 wherein a specific question was put to the Defendant as to whether he was aware that the suit property is an ancestral property or not. In response to the said question, the Defendant/ appellant has stated that the property is a joint family property. In spite of those statements, the Trial Court has not thought it fit to frame an additional issue and decided the lis between the parties. In our view, the said issue is wholly relevant and significant for the effective disposal of the suit filed by the Plaintiff/ Respondent.
5. In that view of the matter, we cannot sustain the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court. Accordingly, while setting aside the impugned judgment and order, we remand the matter back to the Trial Court with a specific direction that the Trial Court would frame the additional issue insofar as the status of the property is concerned after affording opportunity to both the parties to lead their further evidence.
6. We are informed by the learned counsel Shri Patil that the Defendant/appellant is in possession of the property and his possession shall not be disturbed either by the Plaintiff/respondent or his representatives till the disposal of the Suit.
7. Under these circumstances, we direct that the title of the property in possession of Defendant/ appellant shall not be disturbed either by the Plaintiff/respondent or his representatives till the disposal of the Suit.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Ordered accordingly.
...................J. (H.L. DATTU)
...................J. (DIPAK MISRA)
NEW DELHI;
JULY 12, 2013
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free