Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.36 seconds)Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors on 25 March, 2008
12. Reverting to the facts of the present case in
light of principle of law laid down by the Supreme
Court in Anathula Sudhakar (supra), it is quite vivid
that there is no detailed pleading with regard to
title. The plaintiff filed a suit only for recovery of
possession, therefore, the first appellate Court is
unjustified in granting decree of declaration of title
and further unjustified in holding that on the basis
of said declaration, the plaintiff has a right of
compensation. The suit ought to have been amended (if
any) clearly claiming declaration of title and
compensation in full against title of the suit land,
10
so that defendant NO.1 could have been opportunity to
meet out those averments and finding of title could
have been decided directly and substantially by
framing an issue. In absence of that pleading, issue
framed and evidence led, defendant No.1 has suffered
prejudice and as such, the judgment and decree passed
by the first appellate Court granting declaration of
title and further holding that the plaintiff is
entitled for compensation in accordance with law
deserves to be set aside and accordingly, it is set
aside and that of the judgment and decree of the trial
Court is hereby restored. The substantial questions of
law are answered in favour of defendant No.1 and
against the plaintiff.
Bachhaj Nahar vs Nilima Mandal & Ors on 23 September, 2008
9. It is correct to say that though the plaintiff during
trial of suit amended the suit finding that he is not
in possession of the suit land and his title is under
cloud by defendant NO.1's plea that the suit land is
government land and they are in possession since long
back, but no prayer was made by the plaintiff in the
pleading either for claiming title or for claiming
compensation by amending the prayer in the suit,
whereas as laid down by the Supreme Court in Bachhaj
Nahar (supra), in a civil suit, relief to be granted
can be only with reference to the prayers made in the
pleadings and held as under:
"22. The observation of the High Court that
when a plaintiff sets forth the facts and
makes a prayer for a particular relief in
the suit, he is merely suggesting what the
relief should be, and that it is for the
6
court, as a matter of law, to decide upon
the relief that should be granted, is not
sound. Such an observation may be
appropriate with reference to a writ
proceeding. It may even be appropriate in a
civil suit while proposing to grant as
relief, a lesser or smaller version of what
is claimed. But the said observation is
misconceived if it is meant to hold that a
civil court may grant any relief it deems
fit, ignoring the prayer.
Aanaimuthu Thevar (Dead) By Lrs vs Alagammal & Ors on 12 July, 2005
(c) But a finding on title cannot be
recorded in a suit for injunction, unless
there are necessary pleadings and
appropriate issue regarding title (either
specific, or implied as noticed in
3
Annaimuthu Thevar ). Where the averments
regarding title are absent in a plaint and
where there is no issue relating to title,
the court will not investigate or examine
or render a finding on a question of title,
in a suit for injunction. Even where there
are necessary pleadings and issue, if the
matter involves complicated questions of
fact and law relating to title, the court
will relegate the parties to the remedy by
way of comprehensive suit for declaration
3 Annaimuthu Thevar v. Alagammal, (2005) 6 SCC 202
9
of title, instead of deciding the issue in
a suit for mere injunction.
1