DASHRATH RAO KATE versus BRIJ MOHAN SRIVASTAVA

DASHRATH RAO KATE versus BRIJ MOHAN SRIVASTAVA

Once a full-fledged inquiry under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC holds the Will proved, and the appellant is brought on record as a legal representative, he need not lead fresh evidence to prove his status again in the same suit, especially when the respondent (tenant) is an outsider with no interest in ownership, and no rival claim has been made.

Parties
Appellant: Dashrath Rao Kate; Respondent: Brij Mohan Srivastava
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
03 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; decrees of Trial Court and Appellate Court restored.
Legal Topics
Eviction, Legal Representatives, Summary Inquiry Under Order 22 Rule 5, Testamentary Succession
Civil Procedure Tenancy Law Eviction Legal Representatives Summary Inquiry Under Order 22 Rule 5 Testamentary Succession

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 2 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dashrath Rao Kate

Appellant

Brij Mohan Srivastava

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether findings in an Order 22 Rule 5 CPC inquiry are binding on the parties at the final stage of the suit
  2. 2 Whether an appellant must lead fresh evidence to prove status as legal representative on the basis of a Will already proved in an Order 22 Rule 5 inquiry
  3. 3 Whether a tenant has locus standi to challenge the Will of the owner in an eviction suit

Ratio Decidendi

Once a full-fledged inquiry under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC holds the Will proved, and the appellant is brought on record as a legal representative, he need not lead fresh evidence to prove his status again in the same suit, especially when the respondent (tenant) is an outsider with no interest in ownership, and no rival claim has been made.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; decrees of Trial Court and Appellate Court restored.

Orders

  • Appellant succeeds with costs of Rs.25,000/-
  • Eviction decree restored as per earlier Trial and Appellate Court judgments