The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908  - Order I Rule (8) , The Limitation Act, 1963  - Section 23

Maintainability of the suit - Suit for permanent injunction - Allegation that defendant encroached upon substantial part of the disputed street - Trial Court decreeing the suit directing the removal of unauthorized construction from the ground - Defendants further restrained from raising any further construction in future on the aforesaid street - Decree passed by Trial Court affirmed by the First Appellate Court and High Court - High Court holding that suit not barred by limitation as an encroachment on public street is a continuing wrong and there exists a continuing cause of action - Appeal against - Plea of non-compliance of the provisions of Order I Rule 8 CPC raised by defendant - Suit filed by an aggrieved person whose right to use public street was prejudicially affected - Since affected person himself has filed the suit, the suit cannot be dismissed for alleged non-compliance of provisions of Order I Rule 8 CPC - Evidence on record showing that defendant encroached upon the suit property consisting of the public street - Decree passed by trial Court confirmed - Appeal dismissed.

Found In:  Topic Index, Judgement

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908  - Order XXIII Rule (3-A) , U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act  - Section 176 , Section 178 , Section 182

Suit maintainability - Jurisdiction - Validity - Defendants instituted suit before Collector in which appellants' father was made as one of the party - Compromise petition was filed with fake signature of appellants' father and on that basis a compromise decree was passed - Appellant filed suit before Trial Court seeking declaration that decree passed by Collector u/ss. 176, 178 and 182 of the 1950 Act was fraudulent obtained, inoperative and that no notice was served upon his father and his alleged signature on compromise petition was faked as he died much earlier and was not alive when decree was passed - Defendants questioned maintainability of suit contending that suit was related to agricultural lands and hence it was beyond jurisdiction and competence of civil court and should only be tried by revenue authorities - Trial Court upheld defendants' objection holding that suit was not maintainable before a civil court - On appeal, District Judge set aside Trial Court order holding that decree passed by Collector was fraudulent, compromise petition and did not involve any adjudication of rights or interests on agricultural lands - Further, defendants objected maintainability of the suit in Trial Court contending that it was barred under O. 23 r. 3-A of CPC - Trial Court dismissed objection and held suit was maintainable - Aggrieved by orders of Trial Court, defendants filed writ petition that allowed by HC under O. 23 r. 3-A of CPC - Hence instant appeal - Whether HC was justified in allowing the writ under O. 23 r. 3-A of CPC - Held, HC was right in holding that appellants' suit was hit by provisions of O. 23 r. 3-A of CPC, but compromise decree which was alleged to be fraudulent and which was sought to be declared as nullity was passed not by civil court but by revenue court in a suit u/s. 176 of the 1950 Act - Further, Revenue Courts were neither equipped nor competent to effectively adjudicate on allegations of fraud that had overtones of criminality and courts are really skilled and experienced to try such issues were constituted under CPC - Hence, provision of O. 23 r. 3-A should not act as bar against suit filed by appellant - Impugned order of HC was set aside - Appeal allowed.

Found In:  Judgement

The Specific Relief Act, 1963  - Section 34

Declaration of possession and permanent injunction - Trial court dismiss the suit - First Appeal decreed suit - High Court - Reversed the judgment and decree of the Court below - Suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner in possession is not maintainable - Appeal - It is found that apart from making a prayer for declaration there is also a consequential prayer for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit property or interfering in peaceful possession of plaintiff therein - Finding of the High Court that the suit is merely for declaration and is not maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act cannot be sustained - Impugned order of the High Court set aside and of the First Appellate Court restored - Appeal allowed

Found In:  Judgement

Civil Law  - Authorisation

Authorisation - Sign, verify and file suit for recovery - Maintainability - Challenged - Ground - Not authorised to file suit - Authority letter not sufficient - Trial Court dismissed suit - Not authorised - Division Bench reversed - Decreed suit - Appeal - Respondent not produced any evidence - Resolution to file suit - No resolution by Board of Directors - Delegating powers to file suit- Impugned judgment of High Court set aside - Trial Court restored - Appeal allowed.

Found In:  Judgement

The Specific Relief Act, 1963  - Section 6

Suit for possession - Suit for recovery of possession of the suit property of which plaintiff tenant was forcibly dispossessed - Trial Court directed to handover the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff - Revision against dismissed by the HC - Where a tenant in exclusive possession is dispossessed forcibly by a person other than landlord, landlord can maintain suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 against such person -landlord by letting out the property to a tenant does not lose possession as he continues to retain the legal possession although actual possession, is with the tenant - Dispossession of tenant by a third party is dispossession of the landlord - Non-impleadment of the tenant does not fatal to the maintainability of the suit - Appeal dismissed.

Found In:  Judgement