NDLI: Shivshankara & Anr Vs. H.p. Vedavyasa Char

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Abatement: Abatement of suit – Non-joinder of necessary parties – Non-impleadment of all other legal heirs of deceased defendant
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Abatement: Abatement of suit – Non-joinder of necessary parties – Non-impleadment of all other legal heirs of deceased defendant – Effect of – Held: In the event of death of one of the defendants, when the estate/interest was being fully and substantially represented in the suit jointly by the other defendants along with deceased defendant and when they are also his legal representatives, by reason of non-impleadment of all other legal heirs consequential to the death of the said defendant, the suit would not abate – Such suit not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties of all his legal heirs/representatives. Amendment: Amendment of pleadings at appellate stage – Permissibility of – Held: While dealing with such prayers, the Courts should avoid hyper technical approach – Circumstances attending to the particular case are to be taken into account to allow or not to allow such prayer – It is allowable only in rarest of rare circumstances – It cannot be granted on the mere request, especially at the appellate stage – On facts, trial court allowed the amendment of the plaint, and the defendants were given multiple opportunities to file an additional written statement, which they did not avail and the suit was decreed – Subsequent developments culminated in the impugned judgment wherein the High Court declined permission to amend the written statement to the defendants – High Court observed that grant of amendment of written statement, if at that stage would have necessitated framing of fresh issues and de novo trial – Thus, no perversity or illegality with the rejection of the prayer for amendment of the written statement.Suit: Suit for possession, based on possessory title – Facts disclosing no title in either party at the relevant time – Prior possession – Relevance of – Held: In such circumstances, when the facts disclose no title in either party, at the relevant time, prior possession alone decides the right to possession of land in the assumed character of owner against all the world except against the rightful owner. Suit: Suit for injunction and for recovery of possession by respondent against the appellants – Maintainability of – Held: On a careful consideration of the available pleadings of the appellants, the High Court held that they did not disclose their defence in their written statement and at the same time did not even contend that they are in possession of the suit property – Thus, the High Court correct in holding the question of maintainability of the suit in the affirmative and in favour of the respondent – Trial court after carefully considering the evidence on record held that the respondent is entitled to get back the possession of suit schedule property from which he was dispossessed – After careful consideration of the additional evidence recorded and transmitted to the High Court by the trial court and considering all contentions and aspects, the High Court only confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court – Thus, when the concurrent findings of the courts below are the outcome of the rightful consideration and appreciation of materials on record, they do not call for any interference. Transfer of Property Act, 1882: s. 52 – Transfer of property pending suit relating thereto – Doctrine of Lis pendens – Held: Import of s. 52 is that if there is any transfer of right in immovable property during the pendency of a suit such transfer will be non est in the eye of law if it will adversely affect the interest of the other party to the suit in the property concerned – Wherever TP Act is not applicable, such principle in the said provision of the Act, based on justice, equity and good conscience is applicable in a given similar circumstance, like Court sale etc – On facts, the suit from which the appeal arises was one based on possessory title, the legality of sale deed need not be gone into in this appeal and rightly has not been gone into by the High Court – High Court declined to act upon the same, in the light of the doctrine of lis pendens.Pleadings: Proof offered without pleadings – Relevance of – On facts, claim for possession/ownership over the suit property by the defendants – Original defendants failed to raise sufficient and appropriate pleadings in the written statement that they have better right for possession of the suit properties – No amount of proof offered without appropriate pleadings would have any relevance – Finding of the High Court that any volume of evidence sans appropriate pleadings would be of no avail is correct.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.T. Ravikumar
Neutral Citation	2023 INSC 318
Petitioner	SHIVSHANKARA & ANR
Respondent	H.P. VEDAVYASA CHAR
SCR	[2023] 6 S.C.R. 359
Judgement Date	2023-05-29
Case Number	10215

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Shivshankara & Anr Vs. H.p. Vedavyasa Char

Please Log-in to view this content

Moreshar S/o Yadaorao Mahajan Vs. Vyankatesh Sitaram Bhedi (d) Thr. Lrs. and Others

Lakhan Sao (deceased) Now Through His Legal Heirs Vs. Dharamu Chaudhary

Devidas and Others Vs. Shrishailappa and Others

Karuna Kansal Vs. Hemant Kansal & Anr.

Mehta Ravindrarai Ajitrai (deceased) Through His Heirs and Legal Representatives & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat

Jhabbar Singh (deceased) Through Legal Heirs & Ors. Vs. Jagtar Singh S/o Darshan Singh

Heirs of Vrajlal J. Ganatra Vs. Heirs of Parshottam S. Shah

Sachin Kashyap & Ors. Vs. Sushil Chandra Srivastava & Ors.

Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar Vs. Roop Singh Rathore & Others

Shivshankara & Anr Vs. H.p. Vedavyasa Char

Shivshankara & Anr Vs. H.p. Vedavyasa Char

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Moreshar S/o Yadaorao Mahajan Vs. Vyankatesh Sitaram Bhedi (d) Thr. Lrs. and Others

Lakhan Sao (deceased) Now Through His Legal Heirs Vs. Dharamu Chaudhary

Devidas and Others Vs. Shrishailappa and Others

Karuna Kansal Vs. Hemant Kansal & Anr.

Mehta Ravindrarai Ajitrai (deceased) Through His Heirs and Legal Representatives & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat

Jhabbar Singh (deceased) Through Legal Heirs & Ors. Vs. Jagtar Singh S/o Darshan Singh

Heirs of Vrajlal J. Ganatra Vs. Heirs of Parshottam S. Shah

Sachin Kashyap & Ors. Vs. Sushil Chandra Srivastava & Ors.

Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar Vs. Roop Singh Rathore & Others

Shivshankara & Anr Vs. H.p. Vedavyasa Char