Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.34 seconds)Section 11 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Deva Ram And Another vs Ishwar Chand And Another on 16 October, 1995
"What the rule, therefore, requires is the unity of all claims based on the
same cause of action in one suit. It does not contemplate unity of distinct
and separate causes of action". This dictum was laid down by the Privy
Council as early as in 1914.
Rathnavathi & Anr vs Kavita Ganashamdas on 29 October, 2014
32. It is true that in the previous suit the court did not accept the
first respondent's case that he was in possession of the property and it
held that he should have filed a suit for recovery of possession instead of a
suit for perpetual injunction. But the question is whether on the allegations
raised by him in the previous suit he could have asked for the relief prayed
for in the subsequent suit. And the question is not whether he could have
or should have filed the former suit on the basis of the cause of action
alleged in the subsequent suit. The observation made by the apex court in
Rathnavathi's case (supra) is relevant:
Inacio Martins Deceased Through Lrs vs Narayan Hari Naik And Ors on 7 April, 1993
31. It is well settled that in a suit for perpetual injunction based on
possession title is irrelevant. The cause of action for the previous suit was
possession of the first respondent and the attempt of the appellant to
trespass into it. In the present suit filed by the first respondent for
recovery of possession the right claimed by him is his title to the property
and the infringement alleged is his dispossession. There cannot be any
doubt that the cause of action for a suit for perpetual injunction based on
possession is different from the cause of action for a suit for recovery of
possession based on title. The cause of action alleged in the previous suit
of the first respondent was different form the one alleged in his present
suit. (See Shri Inacio Martins vs Narayan Hari Naik AIR 1993 SC 1756)
Mohammad Khalil Khan vs Mahbub Ali Mian on 31 May, 1948
In Mohammed Khalil Khan and others Vs Mahbub Ali Mian
(AIR 1949 P.C 78) the Privy Council observed that the cause of action for a
suit is the right of the plaintiff and its infringement by the defendant. To
attract the provisions in Order II Rule 2 CPC identity of cause of action is
necessary; if the causes of action in both suits are distinct, the second suit
is not barred.
Narashalli Kempanna And Ors. vs Narasappa And Ors. on 17 March, 1987
In Narashalli Kempanna and others vs Narasappa and
others (AIR 1989 Karnataka 50) which is a decision relied on by
Sri P.R.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the first respondent, the plaintiff
filed a suit for declaration of his title to the plaint schedule property and for
a perpetual injunction on the allegation that the defendant attempted to
interfere with his possession. The suit was dismissed holding that the
plaintiff failed to prove his possession. He filed another suit for declaration
of his title to the very same property and for recovery of its possession.
The court held that the plaintiff was entitled only to a fractional right in the
property and his remedy was a suit for partition and it dismissed the suit.
Thereafter, he filed a third suit for partition of the property and separation of
his share. Karnataka High Court held that the third suit is not barred by the
provisions in Order II Rule 2 C.P.C because the plaintiff got a new cause of
action when his second suit was dismissed on the ground that he did not
have exclusive title to the property. It observed that there should be
complete identity of the causes of action in both suits to attract the bar.
Kunjan Nair Sivaraman Nair vs Narayanan Nair And Ors on 6 February, 2004
This has been reiterated in Kunjan Nair Sivaraman Nair vs Narayanan
Nair (AIR 2004 SC 1761)
Kamal Kishore Saboo vs Nawabzada Humayun Kamal Hasan Khan on 2 February, 2001
4. Sri.Varghese Kuriakose learned counsel for the appellant
brought to my notice the following decisions of the Privy Council, the
Supreme Court and various High Courts which have discussed the scope
R.S.A No.481 of 2005 5
of Order II Rule 2 C.P.C. Mohammad Khali Khan and others vs Mahbub
Ali Mian and others (AIR 1949 P.C. 78), Gurubux Singh vs Bhooralal
(AIR 1964 SC 1810), Deva Ram and Another vs Ishwar Chand and
Another (AIR 1996 SC 378), Kamal Kishore Saboo vs Nawabzada
Humayun Kamal Hasan Khan (AIR 2001 Delhi 220), Kunjan Nair
Sivaraman Nair vs Narayanan Nair (AIR 2004 SC 1761), Dalip Singh vs
Mehar Singh Rathee and Others (2004) 7 SCC 650), Swamy
Atmananda and Others vs Sri.Ramakrishna Tapovanam and Others
(AIR 2005 SC 2392), Dadu Dayalu Mahasabha, Jaipur (Trust) vs
Mahant Ram Niwas and Another (AIR 2008 SC 2187), Municipal
Corporation, Hyderabad vs Sunder Singh (AIR 2008 SC 2579), Alka
Gupta vs Narendar Kumar Gupta (2011 SC 9), Virgo Industries (Eng.)
Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai (Dead) By L.Rs. ... vs Mohd. Hanifs (Dead) By L.Rs. And Ors on 22 March, 1976
In Syed
Mohd Salie Labbai (dead) by L.Rs and others vs Mohd. Hanifa (dead)
by L.Rs and others (1976) 4 SCC 780) the Supreme Court held: