JOGINDER SINGH (DEAD) THR. LRs Versus DR. VIRINDERJIT SINGH GILL (DEAD) THR. LRs. & ORS., 2024 (SC) 838
Facts: The case involves the determination of rights in a suit property. The appellant's right in the suit property was recognized in the first partition suit. Subsequently, a second partition suit was filed, which also recognized the respondent’s right to the same property. The appellant objected to the decree passed in the respondent's favor in the second partition suit, as it conflicted with his already established rights from the first partition suit. The appellant filed an application under Section 47 and Order XXI Rule 58 and 97 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to object to the decree. The High Court refused to allow the appellant’s civil revision against the First Appellate Court’s order, reasoning that objections based on misapplication of law could not be entertained.
Issue:Can procedural irregularity defeat substantive rights?
Observation: The Supreme Court held that procedural irregularity cannot defeat substantive rights. The Court granted relief to the appellant, whose objections were dismissed by the High Court due to
the misapplication of legal provisions in challenging the decree. Setting aside the High Court’s decision, the bench, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Sanjay Karol, observed that even though the appellant had misapplied the provisions while objecting to the decree, his substantive right to the suit property, as established in the first partition suit, could not be denied. The Court emphasized that the rights accrued to the appellant in the first partition suit had attained finality. Therefore, the decree in the second partition suit, which recognized the respondent’s rights, must exclude any portions already decreed in the first partition suit. As it was unclear from the record whether the land in question (Khasra No. 2259) granted to the respondent in the second partition suit was the same as the land granted to the appellant, the Court chose not to decide the objection itself. Instead, it referred the matter back to the First Appellate Court to reconsider the appellant’s objections on merits.
