Skip to main content

Case Analysis of Ajay Mohan v. H. N. Rai

 CASE ANALYSIS OF AJAY MOHAN V. H.N. RAI

Significance:

This case law corroborates the statement that says that the interim application which has the same relief sought in a previous interim application and rejected by the Court, then the previous interim order of the Court operates as the Res Judicata.

Facts:

The appellants are said to have become owners of the suit land by reason of a deed of gift, which is said to have been executed by Mrs. Tara Sarup on 30th March, 1968 in favor of the first appellant. Indisputably, the respondents claim their right, title on the land in suit in terms of an agreement of sale purported to have been executed by the appellants herein in their favor on 23rd October, 1969. The appellants’ contends that the sale agreement is a forged document and the Plaintiff/Appellant 1 being minor on the date of execution of the agreement, the same is void in law. The respondents contended that out of the amount of consideration mentioned in the said agreement, namely, Rs. 90,000, a sum of Rs. 80,000 has already been paid and they were put in possession there over in part-performance thereof, as envisaged under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. Various proceedings appear to have initiated before the Revenue Courts in regard to inclusion of the name of the respondents in the revenue records. It is further accepted that the first appellant herein had executed three deeds of assignment in favor of the second appellant herein on or about 29th July, 1991.  A suit was filed by the appellants before the City Civil Court, Bombay in 2006 claiming, inter alia, for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from creating any right in or over the suit land on the basis of revenue entries as also for a decree for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with their possession and occupation thereupon. The onus was upon the plaintiffs to get the said documents cancelled and treated as null and void. Such a prayer having not been made, mere relief for injunction prayed for by the plaintiffs cannot give rise to existence of prima facie case for grant of relief at the interlocutory stage. Later, they filed an interim application for amendment of the plaint along with imposing injunction on defendants until the delivery of the decree. The second interim application was dismissed stating that it violates the principle of res judicata by the city civil judge but allowed to the extent of amendment of the plaint. The plaintiffs moved to the High Court challenging the interim order.

Issue in the original suit:

Whether the possession had been delivered to them in part-performance of agreement of sale.

Issue in the appeal:

Whether the doctrine of res judicata applies for the interim application seeking the injunction on the defendants.

Petitioners’/Appellants’ Arguments:

  1. That proving the sale agreement was fraudulent was unnecessary as the original copy of the agreement was missing.

  2. That there was an amendment in the prayer and hence the second interim application cannot be dismissed by applying res judicata.

Defendant’s/Respondent’s Arguments:

  1. That even though opportunity was provided to the appellants to amend the plaint, they didn’t claim that the defendant’s doesn’t possess any right over the property.

  2. That since the second interim application has the same subject matter with that of the first interim application which was rejected, has to be dismissed to that extent by applying the doctrine of res judicata.

Interpretation:

While passing an interim order of injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC, the court is required three basic principles, namely, (a) prima facie case, (b) balance of convenience and inconvenience, and (c) irreparable loss and injury. While granting injunction must also take into consideration the conduct of the parties, Makers Development Services (P) Ltd. v. M. Visvesvaraya Industrial Research & Development Centre. Even though an opportunity was given to the appellants they didn’t prove the sale agreement was fraudulent as the onus of proof shifts to them after the defendants proved that there was a sale agreement between them. Since, they have made no trials but sought the similar relief again; the doctrine of res judicata applies. Only because a further prayer had been made in the suit upon amending the plaint, the same by itself didn’t bring about a situational change warranting application of mind afresh by the learned judge, City Civil Court.

Judgment:

The appeal is dismissed with costs stating that the impugned judgment doesn’t suffer from any infirmity.


Case Analysis of Ajay Mohan v. H. N. Rai by Velanati Jyothirmai @ Lex Cliq
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more