TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (10) TMI 389
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for 99 years with monthly rent of Rs. 30. Again on March 22, 1968 Lalgiri sold 446 sq. yards of land to Madan Mohan. It was out of the land which was already leased to Madan Mohan. The sale was for Rs. 4,000 Madan Mohan constructed some shops on a portion of the land purchased. He first, rented the shops to Jankidas and Mohan Lal and later sold the same to them for Rs. 15,000. Madan Mohan is the first respondent, Jankidas and Mohanlal are respondents 2 and 3 before us. There was yet another transaction between the same parties. On April 8, 1969 Madan Mohan sold a piece of land measuring 124 sq. yards to respondents 2 and 3 for Rs. 1,500. This piece of land forms part of the land which Madan Mohan purchased from Lalgiri. 4. In the meantime, there was change of guard in the Math. Lalgiri was said to have abdicated Mahantship in favour of the first appellant. 5. The Math thereafter filed Suit No. 28 of 1971 challenging the alienations made by Lalgiri. The suit was for declaration that the alienations were without authority and not binding on the Math. It was also for possession of the property from respondents 1 to 3. The trial court decreed the suit in part. The trial court ga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... caution. The Court should not lose sight of the other provisions in the CPC. It should not also forget the law limitation and the Court Fees Act." 9. Before us, Mr. B.D. Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant pursued both the reasons given by the High Court. Counsel asserted that the cross-objection was maintainable not only against the appellants but also against Madan Mohan. The counsel also urged that in any event, the cross-objection ought to have been considered if not under Order 41 Rule 22 but under Order 41 Rule 33 of the CPC. Mr. Rohtagi, learned Counsel for the respondents, advanced an interesting submission. He urged that the land sold was a part of the land already leased to Madan Mohan. Even if the sale goes as invalid, the lease of the entire land revives and remains. So long as the lease remains binding between the parties, Madan Mohan would be entitled to retain possession of the entire land demised. The counsel urged that it would be, therefore, futile for the Math to seek possession of the property from the appellants in the cross-objection. 10. The assumption of Mr. Rohtagi though logical if not legal should be subject to the decision in the cross-objec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n such further time as the Appellate Court may see fit to allow. xxx xxx xxx R. 33 Power of Court of Appeal. The Appellate Court shall have power to pass any decree and make any order which ought to have been passed or made and to pass or make such further other decree or order as the case may require, and this order may be exercised by the Court notwithstanding that the appeal is as to part only of the decree and may be exercised in favour of all or any of the respondents or parties may not have filed any appeal or objection and may, where there have been decrees in cross suits or where two or more decrees are passed in one suit, be exercised in respect of all or any of the decrees, although an appeal may not have been filed against such decree. xxx xxx xxx 13. Generally, the cross-objection could be urged against the appellant. It is only by way of exception to this general rule that one respondent may urge objection as against the other respondent. The type of such exceptional cases are also very much limited. We may just think of one or two such cases. For instance, when the appeal by some of the parties cannot effectively be disposed of w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to human behaviour. No attempt should be made to unsettle the law unless there is compelling reason. We do not find any such compelling reason and we, therefore, reiterate the above principles. 15. Basically, the first question raised in the cross-objection relates to the right of Madan Mohan to retain the property under the sale deed. The appellants are the second purchasers. The Math, therefore, could urge the objection that the appellants and Madan Mohan have no right to retain the property after the sale deed was declared null and void. But then the considerations as to the lease deed is quite different. The validity of the lease deed and the possession of the land thereof has to be determined only against Madan Mohan. It is not intermixed with the right of the appellants. It has no relevance to the question raised in the appeal. The High Court was, therefore, right in holding that the cross-objection as to the lease was not maintainable against Madan Mohan. 16. But that does not mean, that the Math should be left without remedy against the judgment of learned single judge. If the cross-objection filed under Rule 22 of Order 41 CPC was not maintainable against the co-resp....