Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2003 DIGILAW 47 (SC)

Surinder Singh v. S. Teja Singh Manshia

2003-01-14

A.R.LAKSHMANAN, S.B.SINHA, V.N.KHARE

body2003
ORDER : V.N. Khare, CJI. - On 22-5-1956, Smt. Gulab Kaur, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant-respondents herein filed a suit for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1000 per month from half-share in the properties left by her husband. Subsequently, the plaint was amended with the leave of the court and the amended relief was for granting decree in regard to half of the share in the estate left by her husband. The suit was decreed on 29-6-1964. However, on appeal by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, the appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the decree of the trial court. Aggrieved, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents filed an appeal before the Supreme Court by way of a special leave petition. 2. While these proceedings were pending, the appellants herein along with Gopinder Singh, brother of Appellant 1 filed Suit No. 237 of 1966 against Jaswant Kaur and Surjit Inder Singh for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the possession of the properties mentioned in the schedule. However, on 25-10-1976?, this Court allowed the appeal preferred by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. Consequently, the decree of the trial court was restored. 3. After the decree of the trial court was restored by this Court, the appellants herein brought a suit (Suit No. 40 of 1979) for declaration that they are the owners in possession over the properties mentioned in the schedule annexed with the plaint and for a declaration to the effect that the Supreme Court judgment dated 25-10-1976, Jaswant Kaur v. Amrit Kaur, (1977) 1 SCC 369 , passed in CA No. 1360 of 1975 arising out of the decree passed in Suit No. 67 of 1960 is not binding on the plaintiffs. The trial court partly decreed the suit on 3-12-1986 in respect of properties mentioned at Sl. Nos. D and F. The rest of the relief was refused. Aggrieved, the appellants herein preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The High Court partly allowed the appeal by decreeing the suit also in respect of the property mentioned at Sl. No. E. However, the Division Bench affirmed the other part of the decree. It is against the said judgment the appellants are in appeal before us. 4. The High Court partly allowed the appeal by decreeing the suit also in respect of the property mentioned at Sl. No. E. However, the Division Bench affirmed the other part of the decree. It is against the said judgment the appellants are in appeal before us. 4. Shri C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants urged that the properties in dispute in Suit No. 67 of 1960 being other than the properties involved in Suit No. 40 of 1979, the High Court committed an error in holding that the decree passed by this Court is binding. We do not find any merit in the submission. 5. In Para 1 of the plaint in Civil Suit No. 40 of 1979, the appellants stated thus: “That the predecessor-in-interest of the present defendants had filed Civil Suit No. 67 of 1960 against Sardar Surjit Inder Singh of Sangrur, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, Sangrur (Punjab) for declaration of her half-share in certain properties including the properties in the present suit.” This paragraph unmistakably admits that the properties involved in Civil Suit No. 40 of 1979 were the same as the properties in dispute in the earlier Civil Suit No. 67 of 1960 filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants. Further, nowhere in the plaint, it has been asserted or any evidence led to that effect that the properties in Suit No. 67 of 1960 were different from the properties involved in Civil Suit No. 40 of 1979 filed by the appellants. The trial court, as well as the High Court, both have recorded a finding that except in regard to the properties mentioned at Sl. Nos. D, E and F, the properties involved in the suit are the same as involved in Civil Suit No. 67 of 1960. This being a finding of fact, is not liable to be interfered with. We find no merit in the appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 6. After the judgment was dictated, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants urged that liberty may be given to the appellants herein to raise the questions involved in this appeal in the partition suit. We do not express any opinion on this matter. It is open to the appellants to raise such questions as are permissible under the law. Appeal dismissed.