whether the judgment of the Appellate Court in setting aside the judgment of the Court below and holding that the defendant is not the son of the plaintiff, is legal and sustainable?




          This Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment in A.S. No.29 of 2005 on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, by virtue of which the judgment in O.S No.133 of 2003 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad was set aside.  The suit was filed for declaration that the defendant is not the son of the plaintiff and for a consequential injunction restraining him from interfering with the possession of the schedule properties. 

          2.  No representation was made by the defendant before the Court below and the Court below dismissed the suit, as there is no positive evidence about the relationship.  As against that, the Appellate Court has reversed the judgment of the Court below accepting the evidence of PW-1.  It appears that the defendant died and the Second Appeal is filed by the legal representatives of the defendant, questioning the correctness of the judgment passed by the appellate Court. 

3.  The substantial question of law is whether the judgment of the Appellate Court in setting aside the judgment of the Court below and holding that the defendant is not the son of the plaintiff, is legal and sustainable? 

4.  POINT: Evidently, the paternity of the defendant is in dispute and when such question is raised, there are serious consequences if a declaration is granted to that effect.  The lower Appellate Court has taken into consideration only the evidence of PW-1 and willingness to go for DNA test.  But, as the matter stands, service of notice on the defendant is disputed and the legal representatives have now come on record to challenge the judgment.  Therefore, it is a fit case where the ex parte decree passed by the Court below has to be set aside and an opportunity has to be given to the appellants / defendants to prove the relationship of the deceased defendant with the plaintiff. 

5.  Therefore, the Second Appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded to the Court below and the appellants / defendants are directed to file written statement within a period of three (3) months and thereafter, the Court below shall dispose of the case within a period of six (6) months by giving opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence.  Each party has to bear their own costs.



June 21, 2012.



Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.