1969 (12) TMI 111 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court allows appeal in property dispute involving adopted son's claim.

SIDRAMAPPA Versus RAJASHETTY

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in a case involving a dispute over possession of properties originally belonging to a family. The plaintiff, claiming ... - Issues:- Suit for possession of suit properties based on title- Dispute over possession of properties originally belonging to Veerbaswantji Rao Deshmukh's family- Claim of being the adopted son of Lakshmibai- Application for impleadment in execution proceedings dismissed- Suit dismissed on the ground of not seeking possession of the property- Bar under Order 2, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure- Controversy over adoption plea- Bar on suit for items in Schedule II due to limitation- Bar on plaintiff's claim for lands in Schedule I under Order 2, Rule 2- Applicability of Order 2, Rule 2 to a suit under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act- Claim for mesne profits not made in the plaintAnalysis:The judgment pertains to a plaintiff's appeal seeking possession of suit properties based on title. The suit properties originally belonged to Veerbaswantji Rao Deshmukh's family, passing to his widow Ratnabai and daughter Lakshmibai upon his death. Dispute arose when Parwatibai took unlawful possession of the properties, leading to a legal battle resulting in Lakshmibai obtaining possession of certain lands. After Lakshmibai's death, the plaintiff, claiming to be her adopted son, sought to be impleaded in the execution proceedings but was denied, leading to subsequent legal actions.The trial court dismissed the suit concerning lands in Schedule I, citing the bar under Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, while granting relief for other properties and cash amount. The High Court upheld this decision. The plaintiff's claim of adoption was accepted by both courts. However, the High Court conceded the limitation bar for specific items in Schedule II.The key issue for consideration was whether the plaintiff's claim for lands in Schedule I was rightly barred under Order 2, Rule 2. The Supreme Court held that the previous suit was misconceived and the plaintiff's remedy should have been a suit for possession based on title. The cause of action in the earlier suit did not align with the present claim, thus not warranting the application of Order 2, Rule 2.The judgment clarified that the plaintiff's suit was not barred by Order 2, Rule 2, rejecting the trial court and High Court's conclusions. The Court did not delve into the applicability of Order 2, Rule 2 to a suit under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. Furthermore, the Court declined to entertain a claim for mesne profits not raised in the plaint, directing the plaintiff to pursue separate legal steps for any such entitlement.In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, modifying the trial court's decree to include lands from Schedule I while upholding the rest of the decision. The plaintiff was awarded costs for both the Supreme Court and High Court proceedings.