TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court affirms dismissal of appeal in property dispute, clarifies post-judgment errors.</h1> <h3>SMT. SOORAJ DEVI Versus PYARE LAL AND ANR.</h3> SMT. SOORAJ DEVI Versus PYARE LAL AND ANR. - 1981 AIR 736, 1981 SCR (2) 485, 1981 SCC (1) 500, 1981 SCALE (1)46 Issues involved: Dispute over property possession; Clarification of High Court order in criminal proceeding.Summary:The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from a dispute over the possession of a property at Birhana Road, Kanpur. The property was initially owned by Khem Raj and later purchased by Pyare Lal. The appellant, Smt. Sooraj Devi, and her son, Kailash Chandra Jain, were also involved in the ownership claim. Kailash Chandra Jain was convicted in a criminal proceeding under section 448 of the Indian Penal Code, and the High Court directed the property to be restored to Pyare Lal's possession. The appellant objected, leading to a series of legal actions including a clarification application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court dismissed the application, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.In analyzing the case, the Supreme Court noted the ongoing civil litigation related to the property. Various civil suits were filed by different parties claiming ownership rights over the property. The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in refusing to entertain the appellant's application seeking clarification of the earlier order.The Supreme Court examined the relevant legal provisions, including section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which limits the power of courts to alter or review judgments. The appellant sought a declaration that the High Court's order did not affect her rights in the property. However, the Court found that the application did not fall under the category of clerical or arithmetical errors that could be corrected post-judgment. The Court also clarified that the inherent power of the court cannot be used to circumvent the statutory limitations on altering or reviewing judgments.Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court to dismiss the application and affirmed the appeal's dismissal. The Court emphasized that the findings in the criminal proceeding should not impact the ongoing civil suits or any related proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
