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>Supreme Court upholds heirs' suit despite technicality, reinstates eviction decree</h1> <h3>KULDEEP KUMAR DUBEY & ORS. Versus RAMESH CHANDRA GOYAL (D) TH LRS.</h3> KULDEEP KUMAR DUBEY & ORS. Versus RAMESH CHANDRA GOYAL (D) TH LRS. - 2015 AIR 1135, 2015 (1) SCR 543, 2015 (3) SCC 525, 2015 (1) JT 472, 2015 (1) SCALE 594 Issues involved:Whether a suit filed by the father of the appellants in respect of property owned by the appellants could be held as maintainable after the father's death and the appellants being added as plaintiffs as heirs. Whether describing the appellants as heirs instead of owners affected the maintainability of the suit.Analysis:The case involved a dispute over a property where the father of the appellants initially filed a suit for eviction against a tenant. After the father's death, the appellants were added as plaintiffs as heirs. The trial court passed a decree for eviction and rent payment in favor of the plaintiffs. However, the District Judge reversed the decree, stating that only the sons of the deceased father had the right to file the suit based on a will bequeathing the property to them. The High Court affirmed this decision.The key issue was whether the suit filed by the father, and later continued by the sons as heirs, was maintainable. The District Judge and the High Court focused on a technicality regarding the description of the appellants as heirs instead of owners in the cause title. The appellants argued that this was a formal defect that did not affect the merits or jurisdiction of the court. They contended that the defect could have been corrected under Order 1 Rule 10 and did not prejudice the defendant. The Supreme Court agreed, citing Section 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which states that a decree should not be reversed for errors or irregularities not affecting the merits or jurisdiction of the court.The Supreme Court held that the District Judge and the High Court erred in focusing on a technicality that did not impact the substance of the case. They allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the High Court and the District Judge, and restoring the trial court's decree for eviction and rent payment in favor of the appellants.
TaxTMI 