Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Rooplal Vs. Sangram Singh

Rooplal vs Sangram Singh

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Rajasthan Decided Jan 07, 1977
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/765025

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 82 of 1969
Subject
Civil
Disposition
Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Civil Procedure Code - Order 7 Rule 10 and Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949--Section 18--Order passed by Single Judge for return of plaint under Order 7 Rule 10--Held, it is not 'judgment.';The two tests for finding out whether an adjudication was a judgment or not namely:;(1) Whether it terminated the suit or p...

Key legal issue
Civil
Outcome / disposition
Appeal dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rooplal

Respondent

Sangram Singh

Legal References

Cases Referred
Asrumati Devi v. Rupendra Deb
Reported In
1977WLN(UC)456

Excerpt

civil procedure code - order 7 rule 10 and rajasthan high court ordinance, 1949--section 18--order passed by single judge for return of plaint under order 7 rule 10--held, it is not 'judgment.';the two tests for finding out whether an adjudication was a judgment or not namely:;(1) whether it terminated the suit or proceedings, and;(2) whether it affected the merits of the controversy between the parties in the suit itself.;(b) words and phrases - 'judgment' in section 18 of rajasthan high court ordinance, 1959--meaning of.;by no stretch of imagination can the order passed by the learned single judge for the return of the plaint under order 7 rule 10 of the code be regarded as a 'judgment' within the meaning of that section, in as much as it is not a decision which affects the merits of the controversy between the parties by determining some right or liability.;special appeal rejected with costs - .....or for payment of any antecedent debt was not challenged before the learned single judge. that being so, the learned single judge held the sale to be void ab initio. he was of the view that the substantive relief which the plaintiff claimed was, in fact, for delivery of possession of the land and, therefore, claim in suit fell within the purview of section 187 of the rajasthan tenancy act and, therefore, the suit was not triable by a civil court. upon that view, the learned single judge made an order for return of the plaint to the proper court under order 7 rule 10 of the code.3. no-doubt, the special appeal has been filed with the leave of the learned single judge, but the question still remains whether or not the order passed by him for tie return of the plaint under order 7 rule 10 of the code was a 'judgment' within the meaning of section 18 of the rajasthan high court ordinance, 1949.4. there was a sharp conflict of opinion between different high courts as to the meaning of the word 'judgment', as used in clause 10 of the letters patent. their lordships of the privy council in sevak jeranchod bhogi lal and ors. v. the dakore temple committee and ors. a.i.r. 1925 p.c. 155 held that the word 'judgment' in a civil case means a decree. the supreme court in asrumati devi v. rupendra deb : [1953]4scr1159 laid down the two tests for finding out whether an adjudication was a judgment or not namely:(1) whether it terminated the suit or proceedings, and(2) whether it affected the merits of the controversy between the parties in the suit itself.5. it is needless for us to go into the controversy as to the meaning of the word 'judgment' under section 18 of the rajasthan high court ordinance 1949. by no stretch of imagination can the order passed by the learned single judge for the return of the plaint under order 7 rule 10 of the code be regarded as a 'judgment' within the meaning of that section, in as much as it is not a decision which affects the merits of the.....

Full Judgment

A.P. Sen, J.

1. This is a special appeal directed against the order of P.N. Shinghal J., in S.B. Civil Regular Second Appeal No. 332 of 1963 dated 6-8-1969 for the return of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The suit out of which this appeal arises, was filed by the appellant Rooplal, as plaintiff for declaration that the Sale-Deed dated 18-8-1951 (exhibit 2) executed by his father Bhooralal of certain lands which constituted joint family property, was not made for legal necessity or for the payment of any antecedent debt and was, therefore, not binding on him; & for possession thereof. The finding of the courts below that the impugned sale was not for legal necessity or for payment of any antecedent debt was not challenged before the learned Single Judge. That being so, the learned Single Judge held the sale to be void ab initio. He was of the view that the substantive relief which the plaintiff claimed was, in fact, for delivery of possession of the land and, therefore, claim in suit fell within the purview of Section 187 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and, therefore, the suit was not triable by a civil court. Upon that view, the learned Single Judge made an order for return of the plaint to the proper court under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code.

3. No-doubt, the special appeal has been filed with the leave of the learned Single Judge, but the question still remains whether or not the order passed by him for tie return of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code was a 'judgment' within the meaning of Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949.

4. There was a sharp conflict of opinion between different High Courts as to the meaning of the word 'judgment', as used in Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Their Lordships of the Privy Council in Sevak Jeranchod Bhogi Lal and Ors. v. The Dakore Temple Committee and Ors. A.I.R. 1925 P.C. 155 held that the word 'judgment' in a civil case means a decree. The Supreme Court in Asrumati Devi v. Rupendra Deb : [1953]4SCR1159 laid down the two tests for finding out whether an adjudication was a judgment or not namely:

(1) Whether it terminated the suit or proceedings, and

(2) Whether it affected the merits of the controversy between the parties in the suit itself.

5. It is needless for us to go into the controversy as to the meaning of the word 'judgment' under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance 1949. By no stretch of imagination can the order passed by the learned Single Judge for the return of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code be regarded as a 'judgment' within the meaning of that section, in as much as it is not a decision which affects the merits of the controversy between the parties by determining some right or liability.

6. The special appeal is, therefore, rejected with costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial