Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

21. Now let me consider the various case laws relied on by both sides. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are discussed hereunder:-

22. In Karuppayammal and another Vs. S.Ramalingam Pillai and others ( 2000 (1) L.W. 593) the learned single Judge of this Court held that the counter claim by a defendant can be maintained only as against plaintiff and not as against the http://www.judis.nic.in defendant. The facts of the said case reveal that the subject matter suit is one for recovery of possession and for mesne profits. In the said suit, a third party filed an application seeking to implead himself as third defendant and also prayed for a declaration of his title to the suit property and for direction to the defendants 1 and 2 therein to deliver possession of the same. Thus, the learned judge found that the defendant cannot seek counter claim against co-defendant. In this case, the subject matter suit is for partition and therefore the status of the parties in this suit cannot be equated with the status of the parties in other suits with other reliefs. It is well settled that in a partition suit the defendant can be considered to be a person suing. This position has been reiterated by this court in a decision reported in 1998 (1) MLJ 137 (C.Kasinathan Vs. N.Athiappan Servai and Others) . Therefore, when a defendant in a partition suit can be considered to be a person suing, then a counter claim can also be made against such defendant by another co-defendant. In fact, when a counter claim is made, the person viz., the defendant who makes such claim becomes the plaintiff insofar as that claim is concerned and person against whom such claim is made becomes the defendant. Sub-clause (2) of Rule 6A of Order 8 CPC makes it clear that such counter claim shall have the same effect as a cross suit. Even if the plaintiff in the said suit discontinues or the suit itself is stayed or dismissed, still the counter claim can be proceeded with as contemplated under Order 8 Rule 6D . Therefore a combined reading of Order 8 Rule 6A(2) with Order 8 Rule 6D makes it abundantly clear that the counter claim in a partition suit can be made even against the co-defendant.

http://www.judis.nic.in

23. The learned Judge in the above said decision reported in Karuppayammal and another Vs. S.Ramalingam Pillai and others ( 2000 (1) L.W. 593) has considered the said issue based on the facts and circumstances of the said case. Moreover Rule 6D and its effect was not placed and considered in that case. Therefore, I am of the view that the said decision of the learned Judge is factually distinguishable and the findings rendered therein can not be be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case.