| CITATION | 2023 SCC 1226 |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT | 26th September, 2023 |
| COURT | Supreme Court of India |
| APPELLANT | Rahimal Bathu and Others |
| RESPONDENT | Ashiyal Beevi |
| BENCH | P.S. Narasimha and Manoj Misra, JJ. |
INTRODUCTION
In the matter at hand, the Respondent claims ownership of a property and disputes the validity of a gift-deed and sale-deed. The trial court decreed one-sixth ownership to the Respondent, which led to a review application and, ultimately, a revision before the Hon’ble High Court. The High Court’s decision to expand the ownership is the subject of this appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The Respondent asserts ownership of the property, claiming it was acquired through a purchase from their grandmother, Fathima Beevi, on 14.11.1990. Appellant no. 1 is Fathima Beevi’s daughter-in-law, and Appellants 2 to 6 are her children. The respondent contends that the gift-deed dated 24.04.1982, in favour of Khaja Mohideen (the husband of appellant no. 1), was executed under undue influence and coercion, rendering it null and void. Alternatively, if the gift-deed is upheld, as Khaja Mohideen passed away on 31.05.1988 before Fathima Beevi, the respondent claims a one-sixth share in the property under the sale-deed dated 14.11.1990.
The trial court ruled that the property was gifted to Fathima Beevi by her father. The gift-deed dated 24.04.1982, executed by Fathima Beevi in favour of Kaja Mohideen, the first appellant’s husband, is deemed invalid. However, the sale-deed dated 14.11.1990 in favour of the respondent is valid. As a result, the respondent is entitled to one-sixth share in the property listed in the second schedule. Consequently, the suit was decreed for one-sixth ownership of the property in question.
Following the trial court’s determination of the invalidity of the gift deed dated 24.04.1982 and the validity of the sale deed dated 14.11.1990, the respondent submitted a review application (I.A. No. 207 of 2001). This application asserted that the suit should have been fully decreed, not limited to a one-sixth share. The trial court, by order dated 20.12.2006, rejected this review application on its merits.
The Respondent, dissatisfied with the review application’s rejection, lodged a civil revision before the Hon’ble Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, invoking Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
The Hon’ble High Court, in its esteemed judgment on 12.09.2017, allowed the revision, setting aside the trial court’s rejection of I.A. No. 207 of 2001. It also granted the review application, modifying the decree dated 21.11.1996 as per the request in the review application. As a result, the trial court’s decree, originally concerning one-sixth of the second schedule property, was expanded to encompass the entire property.
Consequently, the appellant, filed the present appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
ISSUE RAISED
Is Revision u/s Section 115 of CPC permissible for an order passed by a subordinate Court rejecting an application for review of an appealable decree in a civil suit?
CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT
The Appellant contended that the Hon’ble High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining a revision against an order denying the review of an appealable decree.
Assuming the revision was permissible, the High Court lacked the authority to unilaterally modify the trial court’s decree, which was not under dispute before it.
If the trial court erred in rejecting the review application, the High Court should have remanded the matter for a fresh review by the trial court.
If the High Court’s order is upheld, it would prejudice the appellant’s right to appeal under Section 96 of the CPC, as the trial court’s decree would be subsumed into the High Court’s modified decree.
The counsel representing the appellants respectfully implores that the judgment and order of the High Court be nullified. Should the Respondent/Appellant harbour any grievances against the judgment and decree rendered by the trial court, they are advised to pursue the available remedy by lodging an appeal as per Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT
An appeal is not permissible following the rejection of a review application, as per Order XLVII, Rule 7(1) of the CPC. Section 115 of the CPC defines “Case” broadly, encompassing civil proceedings beyond suits. Consequently, there is no legal impediment to considering a revision against the denial of a review application.
The elucidation provided in Section 115 of the CPC unambiguously establishes that the phrase “any case which has been decided” encompasses not only final judgments but also encompasses any interlocutory orders issued or decisions reached during the course of a legal suit or other proceedings. Consequently, it is imperative to note that the term “any case which has been decided” is all-encompassing and not limited in its scope.
The High Court’s revisional authority under Section 115 of the CPC is sufficiently broad to rectify jurisdictional errors and, in doing so, may issue necessary orders to ensure justice is served.
The trial court’s final judgment, from which the decree was issued, contains a contradiction. This inconsistency arises from the fact that if the gift deed dated 24.04.1982 is considered invalid, and the sale deed in favour of the respondent is deemed valid, it should grant exclusive ownership and possession of the disputed property to the respondent. Consequently, there is a clear and obvious error in the record, which should have been rectified during the review process. However, as the correction was not made, the High Court, acting within its authority under Section 115 of the CPC, was justified in amending the decree.
JUDGEMENT
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, upon careful consideration, noted that the High Court erred in entertaining the Respondent’s revision application following the rejection of her request for a review of a decree that was subject to appeal. Consequently, the appeal is hereby granted. The contested judgment and order issued by the High Court are hereby nullified. It is imperative to clarify that this ruling shall not impede the plaintiff/respondent’s prerogative to initiate an appeal against the trial court’s decree, including the submission of an application to request leniency in cases of any delay encountered during the appeal filing process.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has carefully reviewed the matter at hand. It found that the High Court erred in entertaining the respondent’s revision application after the rejection of her review request for an appealable decree. As a result, the appeal is granted, and the contested judgment and order issued by the High Court are nullified. It is important to emphasise that this ruling does not hinder the plaintiff/respondent’s right to initiate an appeal against the trial court’s decree, even if there are delays encountered during the appeal filing process.
REFERENCE
SCC Online
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
This Article is written by Raj Nagre student of New Law College, Mumbai; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
