Sita Ram Goel vs Sukhnandi Dayal & Anr.
Date of Order:
20 September, 1971
Hon’ble Justice Vaidyialingam, C. A.
Petitioner: Sita Ram Goel
Respondent: Sukhnandi Dayal & Anr
This appeal is filed by the appellant to challenge the reversal order passed by the Allahabad High Court of the judgement passed by the lower courts. Later, the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts judgement mentioning that High Court was erred in concluding and interpretation of the law.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Section 105 (2)
- Section 47
- Order XXI Rule 2 (2)
- Order XXI Rule 1
- Order 21 Rule 2
- Order 21 Rule 1
- Order 41 Rule 23
- Order 43 Rule 1
- In this case, the appellant was the tenant and the respondent was the landlord. The respondent issued a decree for eviction and damages against the appellant and the execution application also filed by the respondent for the same on June 16, 1960.
- On September 3, 1960, the appellant submitted objections in accordance with Order 21, Rule 2(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.), claiming that the parties had reached a settlement on July 25, 1957. The final payment allegedly paid under the terms of the agreement, according to the appellant, was on June 16, 1960. Based on the purported compromise and payments, the appellant asked for the decree modification to be recorded.
- Since the application was filed more than 90 days after the date of the compromise (July 25, 1957), the trial court dismissed it as being time-barred. The appellant's claim that the statute of limitations should start running as of the last payment made on June 16, 1960, was adopted by the appeal court.
- The case was returned to the trial court by the appeal court for additional inquiry into the validity of the agreement and the payments. The appellant's argument regarding the veracity of the compromise and payments, including the money made on June 16, 1960, was accepted by the trial court after the case was remanded.
- The trial court ordered the complete adjustment and compliance of the decree after finding that the application was submitted on time. The appeal was dismissed by the appellate court after it upheld the trial court's conclusions.
- The appellant was found not to have conformed with Order 21, Rule 1 of the C.P.C., which was in effect in Allahabad, according to the High Court, which accepted the findings about the compromise and payments. The High Court denied the appellant's motion made pursuant to C.P.C. Order 21, Rule 2.
- Whether the appellant’s appeal against the reversal of the judgement passed by the lower courts by the Allahabad High Court is valid or not?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- The Learned Counsel on the behalf of the appellant challenges the Allahabad High Court's reversal of two subordinate court decrees. The Leaned Counsel also argues that a compromise was reached with the landlord, where certain payments would extinguish an eviction decree.
- It was also mentioned that, the trial court initially dismissed the appellant's application, but it was later accepted by the District Judge and trial court. The High Court reversed the decision, stating the payments did not comply with the law. The Learned Counsel concluded that, the High Court erred in interfering with the earlier findings and misinterpreted the law on payments.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The Learned Counsel on the behalf of the respondent, firstly mentioned Order 21 Rule 1 C.P.C. as it is currently in effect in Allahabad. Later, argued that the payments had not been paid in compliance with the specified norm even if the appellant agreed with him. The payments that have not been provided in line with the abovementioned norm,
- Therefore, the Learned Counsel, urged that the High Court was perfectly justified in holding that the payments which have not been made in accordance with the said rule, cannot be considered for recording adjustment of the decree.
- The Supreme Court, considered the earlier ruling, where it was decided that the application would not be time-barred provided the appellant could show the compromise and the last payment paid on June 16, 1960. After the remand, the respondent appealed the District Court’s judgement. But they made no objections to the appeal's maintainability or the requirement that the compromise and payment be investigated.
- The Civil Procedure Code's Section 47 applied to the proceedings, according to the Supreme Court. The Court referenced Order 41 Rule 23 C.P.C.'s authority for the appellate court to remand cases. According to Section 105(2) C.P.C., the respondent was barred from contesting the legality of the remand order because they neglected to file an appeal against it.
- Therefore, the Supreme Court determined that the conclusions of the lower courts regarding the compromise and payments were binding. By ignoring the remand order and pertinent facts, the High Court erred. Without imposing any costs, the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' judgements and allowed the appeal.
The High Court erred in overturning the earlier conclusions and misapplied the law, according to the Supreme Court, which upheld the appellant's appeal. In accordance with the contract, the appellant had submitted a claim for settlement and made payments. The compromise and payments had been approved by the lower courts, but the High Court highlighted non-compliance with the payment regulation. The Supreme Court permitted the appeal without charging any costs, highlighting the preclusive nature of the earlier judgement and upholding the rulings of the lower courts