SATYENDER AND ORS. versus SAROJ AND ORS

SATYENDER AND ORS. versus SAROJ AND ORS

The High Court's decree in favour of the plaintiffs insofar as it granted declaration and possession in respect of Killa Nos. 21//3/2 and 7//13 is set aside because the plaintiffs failed to prove title/possession and the mere absence of a defendant counter-claim on those plots does not entitle plaintiffs to a decree; concurrently, the High Court was correct to reject the defendants' counter-claim in respect of Killa Nos. 6//18 and 23 because under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC a counter-claim must be against the plaintiff's claim and the plaintiffs had not claimed those plots; additionally, in Haryana Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 governs second appeals so formulation of a...

Parties
Appellants/defendants: Satyender and Ors.; Plaintiffs/respondents: Saroj and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Second Appeal Decision to Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Counter Claim, Order VIII Rule 6 a CPC, Section 100 CPC, Section 41 Punjab Courts Act, Second Appeal, Burden of Proof, Non Joinder
Civil Procedure Property Law Revenue Law Appellate Jurisdiction Counter Claim Order VIII Rule 6 a CPC Section 100 CPC Section 41 Punjab Courts Act +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Satyender and Ors.

Appellants/defendants

Saroj and Ors.

Plaintiffs/respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Second Appeal Decision to Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was required to formulate a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC or whether Section 41 Punjab Courts Act applies in Haryana
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs proved title/possession such that the High Court was justified in decreeing their claim on Killa Nos. 21//3/2 and 7//13
  3. 3 Whether a defendant can maintain a counter-claim under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC in respect of plots not claimed by the plaintiff (Killa Nos. 6//18 and 23)

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court's decree in favour of the plaintiffs insofar as it granted declaration and possession in respect of Killa Nos. 21//3/2 and 7//13 is set aside because the plaintiffs failed to prove title/possession and the mere absence of a defendant counter-claim on those plots does not entitle plaintiffs to a decree; concurrently, the High Court was correct to reject the defendants' counter-claim in respect of Killa Nos. 6//18 and 23 because under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC a counter-claim must be against the plaintiff's claim and the plaintiffs had not claimed those plots; additionally, in Haryana Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 governs second appeals so formulation of a...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • The High Court judgment and order dated 19.07.2017 is set aside insofar as it decreed the plaintiffs' claim for Killa Nos. 21//3/2 and 7//13
  • The rejection by the High Court of the defendants' counter-claim in respect of Killa Nos. 6//18 and 23 is upheld