Skip to content


Saksena Brothers (P) Ltd. Vs. Bhudhar Chandra Banerjee and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 369 of 1969
Judge
Reported inAIR1977SC1719; (1977)2SCC76
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , - Sections 115, 151 and 152
AppellantSaksena Brothers (P) Ltd.
RespondentBhudhar Chandra Banerjee and ors.
Excerpt:
.....of 'b' sold to 'c' - 'c' filed application for correction of final decree - 'a' leased out his share of property to 'd' - appeal before apex court - subsequently appeal withdrawn - thus appeal dismissed. - [ a.k. sarkar,; j.r. mudholkar,; k. subbarao,; n. rajgopala ayyangar and; raghubar dayal, jj.] under a. 413 of the calcutta municipal act, 1951, no person shall without a licence granted by the corporation of calcutta, keep open any cinema house for public amusement in calcutta. under s. 548(2), for every licence under the act, a fee may be charged at such rate as may from time to time be fixed by the corporation. in 1948, the appellant (corporation) fixed fees on the basis of annual valuation of the cinema house. the respondent, who was the owner and licensee of a cinema..........4. during the pendency of these proceedings, it is stated on behalf of serajul haq, respondent learned counsel 13, that he took the property learned counsel 4b, jackson lane. calcutta on lease for sixty years from the plaintiff. 5. at the hearing of the appeal, mr. jagdish swarup, learned counsel for the appellant, states that there has been a settlement between the appellant and the plaintiff-respondent and that the deed of settlement has been filed in this court. mr. jagdish swarup on behalf of the appellant and mr. patel on behalf of bhudhar chandra banerjee plaintiff-respondent affirm that compromise and state that the same is binding upon their clients. as against that. mr. desai on behalf of respondent learned counsel 13 states that his client is in possession of the property.....
Judgment:

H.R. Khanna, J.

1. This appeal on certificate arises out of a suit for partition brought by Bhudhar Chandra Banerjee plaintiff-respondent, on March 4, 1937. The plaintiff in that suit claimed one-half share in certain properties, including the properties situated on Jackson Lane, Calcutta. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court, but on appeal to the High Court there was a compromise between the parties and a preliminary decree was awarded in favour of the plaintiff on July 27, 1945 A local commissioner was thereafter appointed to partition the property. The local commissioner submitted a report, and in accordance with his report, a final decree was prepared on February 14, 1947. In execution of the final decree, the parties were delivered possession of the property which fell to their share in August, 1947.

2. As mentioned above the property, which was the subject-matter of the partition suit, included the property situated in Jackson Lane. One part of that property was allotted to the defendant? and the same is stated to be numbered 4A while the other part which is stated to be numbered 4B fell to the share of the plaintiff The property which fell to the share of the defendants was purchased by Saksena Brothers (P) Ltd. the appellant.

3. On March 11, 1959 an application was filed under Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC by the appellant before the trial Court for correction of the final decree on the ground that the local commissioner while effecting partition by metes and bounds had made wrong calculation of the area. It is stated that on account of that mistake the area in dispute was wrongly shown as haying fallen to the share of the plaintiff. This application was allowed by the trial Court as per order dated October 16, 1963. The plaintiff thereupon filed an application under Section 115 of the CPC to the High Court against the order of the trial Court. The High Court accepted the revision petition and dismissed the application under Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC as per order dated September 24, 1964. It is this order which is the subject-matter of this appeal.

4. During the pendency of these proceedings, it is stated on behalf of Serajul Haq, respondent learned Counsel 13, that he took the property learned Counsel 4B, Jackson Lane. Calcutta on lease for sixty years from the plaintiff.

5. At the hearing of the appeal, Mr. Jagdish Swarup, learned Counsel for the appellant, states that there has been a settlement between the appellant and the plaintiff-respondent and that the deed of settlement has been filed in this Court. Mr. Jagdish Swarup on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Patel on behalf of Bhudhar Chandra Banerjee plaintiff-respondent affirm that compromise and state that the same is binding upon their clients. As against that. Mr. Desai on behalf of respondent learned Counsel 13 states that his client is in possession of the property in dispute as a lessee and he is not bound by the compromise between the appellant and the plaintiff-respondent. According further to Mr. Desai. whatever right, title and interest was retained by Bhudhar Chandra plaintiff-respondent has been sold in court auction. In reply to that, Mr. Jagdish Swarup asserts that the property in dispute has not been leased out to respondent learned Counsel 13 and that the only person with whom it was necessary for the appellant to enter into a compromise with respect to the property in dispute was the plaintiff-respondent.

6. The only question which has been agitated before us is whether the property in dispute has been leased out in favour of respondent learned Counsel 13 and whether he is bound by the settlement arrived at between the appellant and Bhudhar Chandra plaintiff-respondent. It is obvious that this is a matter which cannot be gone into by this Court in this appeal against an order dismissing the application under Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC. Learned Counsel for the parties present state that it would be open to the person feeling aggrieved to establish his claim with respect to the property in dispute in a separate suit. In the circumstances, Mr. Jagdish Swarup withdraws the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with no order as to costs. We make it expressly clear that we express no opinion on the merits of the case.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //