Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. Learned counsel for the respondent reported that the appellant was not complying with the interim orders of this Court and was not depositing the rents to the credit of the suit, as directed by this Court.

13. Heard Sri A. Narsimha Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri A. Kranthi Kumar Reddy, the counsel for the appellant on record and Sri V. Hari Haran, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Srikanth Hari Haran, the counsel for the respondent on record.

14. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellantcontended that though the defendant filed written statement stating about the settlement deed executed on 26.07.1998 and that all the parties signed on it and took a contention that the suit was not maintainable and that the plaintiff was estopped from denying the settlement, no issue was framed by the trial court with regard to the maintainability of the suit or on the validity and enforceability of the settlement deed, no rejoinder was filed by the plaintiff. There was no question of permissive possession, when there was a settlement deed. The plaintiff examined as PW.1, in her cross-examination stated that her signature on settlement deed was obtained under duress but any amount of evidence without pleading could not be looked into. The persons who were Dr.GRR, J sa_636_2010 parties and signatories to the settlement deed could not question the said document. The said settlement deed was also marked as Ex.B5 in O.S.No.35 of 1999 filed by the sons of the plaintiff against the defendant for partition and the son of the plaintiff examined as PW.1 admitted the said document. He contended that Ex.B5 was impounded, as such, it could be looked for collateral purpose to show how the defendant could maintain his possession and relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kale and Ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors.1, Yellapu Uma Maheswari and Another Vs. Buddha Jagadheeswara Rao and Ors.2, Hira Lal and Anr. Vs. Gajja and Ors.3 and Sita Ram Bhama Vs. Ramvatar Bhama 4 and also upon the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Aziz Ahmed Khan Vs. I.A. Patel5. 14.1. He further contended that when no issue was framed with regard to the settlement deed, both the courts stating that the settlement deed was not acted upon was not correct. The defendant No.1 stated before the court that he wanted to deposit the amount in the account of the plaintiff, but the plaintiff had not furnished the details of her account. As such, the defendant had deposited the said amount of Rs.1,00,000/- before the elders. The plaintiff suppressed the (1976) 3 SCC 119 (2015) 6 SCC 787 (1990) 3 SCC 285 (2018) 15 SCC 130 AIR 1974 AP 1 Dr.GRR, J sa_636_2010 fact of settlement deed in her plaint. She admitted her signature on the settlement deed but only stated that the same was obtained under duress. As such, she ought to have filed a suit either for declaration of title, recovery of amount or cancellation of settlement deed. But no further notice was given by her even after the reply notice given by the defendant stating about the settlement deed. The stand taken by the plaintiff that she signed on the settlement deed under duress and the settlement deednot acted upon were contradictory pleas. The plaintiff could not take inconsistent pleas. He further contended that though the settlement deed was unregistered but the said document was impounded. The defendant was continuing in possession only basing upon the settlement deed. As such, it could be looked into for collateral purpose.

16. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in reply admitted default in complying the orders of the Court but contended that the same would not come in the way in deciding the Second Appeal on questions of law. He further submitted that he was not insisting for the second question raised in the grounds of appeal as it was pertaining to the question of fact and only insisted to answer on the first question pertaining to the validity of the settlement deed.

17. As such, the only question left before this court to answer in this second appeal is that whether the lower appellate court was justified in not considering Ex.B5 having concluded that the said settlement deed was signed by the respondent herein and was later impounded.

23. As seen from the facts of the case, no issue was framed with regard to the maintainability of the suit or validity of the family settlement deed either by the trial court or by the first appellate court. The trial court framed the issue as to whether the plaintiff was entitled for possession of the schedule property by ejecting the defendant and the first appellate court framed the point for consideration as to whether the appellant-defendant was entitled for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 02.06.2007 passed in O.S.No.486 of 2022 on the file of the III Senior civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, as prayed for.

26. As no counter claim was made by the defendant claiming the suit schedule property as that of him basing on the settlement deed, no rejoinder need to be filed by the plaintiff under Order VIII, Rule 6 of C.P.C.. Though the importance of pleadings cannot be ignored and the courts ought to have framed the issue with regard to the validity of the settlement deed or maintainability of the suit, non framing of an issue is not fatal in each and (2015) 3 SCC 624 Dr.GRR, J sa_636_2010 every case. If the parties are aware of the pleadings and had adduced evidence with regard to it, the absence of the issue may not be fatal and it could be considered only as an irregularity. Though an issue was not specifically framed, but was covered by implication and the parties knew about the pleas raised and involved in the trial, the mere fact that the plea was not expressly taken in the issues would not be fatal to the case. If the parties knew that the matter in question was involved in the trial and had adduced the evidence about it, no injustice would be caused even if no issue was framed in the said regard. The appeallant-defendant had adduced evidence with regard to the settlement deed and got marked the same as Ex.B5.