- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Mulimani Sanna Basavarajappa v. Basavannappa
Factual and Procedural Background
A partition suit was filed by the plaintiff claiming to be the son of defendant 2 and seeking partition of properties. Defendant 2 denied that the plaintiff was his son and repudiated the plaintiff's right to partition. While that suit was pending the plaintiff applied for interim maintenance. The learned Civil Judge ordered defendant 2 to pay Rs. 25 per month as interim maintenance. Defendant 2 filed this revision petition against that order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the learned Civil Judge had jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to grant an interim order for maintenance to the plaintiff when the plaintiff's claim (paternity and right to partition) was disputed by defendant 2.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's (Defendant 2) Arguments
- Mr. Motaiya, counsel for the petitioner, argued that the learned Civil Judge had no jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to make the interim maintenance order in a case where the plaintiff's claim was disputed and not admitted.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Abdul Rahman v. Tajunnissa Begum(1) | Establishes the principle that when the claim made in the plaint is contested, the Court has no inherent jurisdiction to grant relief until that claim is determined on its merits (i.e., by the final hearing and decree). | The court relied on this authority to hold that the Civil Judge lacked jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC to grant interim maintenance where paternity (and entitlement) was disputed, and thereby set aside the interim maintenance order. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court accepted the petitioner's contention and relied on the authority in Abdul Rahman v. Tajunnissa Begum(1). The controlling principle identified was that where the claim in the plaint is contested, the court has no inherent jurisdiction to grant relief of the nature claimed until the claim is decided on its merits at the final hearing.
The court analogised the present case to the cited authority: in that prior case an order directing interim maintenance had been set aside on appeal because the defendant denied the relationship giving rise to maintenance and thus the relief sought could only be properly granted by the ultimate decree. Applying the same principle, the court reasoned that since defendant 2 did not admit that the plaintiff was his son, the Civil Judge could not, under Section 151 CPC, make an order granting interim maintenance. The court further observed that such an order is not among the interim orders which the court is authorised to make under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The revision petition is allowed and the order made by the learned Civil Judge directing defendant 2 to pay Rs. 25 per month as interim maintenance is set aside.
Implications:
- The immediate effect is that the interim maintenance order is vacated and the Civil Judge is directed to proceed to dispose of the partition suit expeditiously.
- The court made no order as to costs in this Court.
- No broader or new precedent was announced beyond applying the principle from the cited authority that contested substantive claims cannot be resolved by the court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC in the form of such interim relief.
This revision petition is presented against the order made by the court below directing the award of interim maintenance to the minor plaintiff by defendant 2, pending the disposal of a partition suit.
That suit was brought by the plaintiff claiming to be the son of defendant 2. Defendant 2 denied that the plaintiff was his son and repudiated the right of the plaintiff to a partition of the properties in his possession. Daring the pendency of that suit, the plaintiff made an application for the award of interim maintenance. The learned Civil Judge made an order directing defendant 2 to pay a sum of Rs. 25 a month by way of interim maintenance.
In this revision petition which is brought by defendant 2, it is contended by Mr. Motaiya, learned Advocate for the petitioner, that the learned Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to make the order under revision. Mr. Motaiya contends that the learned Civil Judge, in a case like this where the claim of the plaintiff is disputed and not admitted, had no jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure under which Section the Civil Judge made the order under revision, to make an interim order like the one which he has made.
It seems to me that this contention urged by Mr. Motaiya has to be upheld. As pointed out in Abdul Rahman v. Tajunnissa Begum(1), there is overwhelming authority for the position that when the claim made in the plaint is contested, the Court has no inherent jurisdiction to grant relief until that claim is determined on its merits and that can only be by the final hearing in the suit.
That was a case in which the defendant was directed to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 500 by way of interim maintenance pending disposal of a suit in which the plaintiff claimed arrears of maintenance and future maintenance. The defendant denied that the plaintiff was his wife and disputed his liability to pay any maintenance. On the original side of the High Court of Madras, an order was made by the Judge who was hearing that suit, that interim maintenance should be paid by the defendant, as I have mentioned above. In an appeal from that order to a Bench of that High Court, that order was set aside for the reason that to grant relief of that description on an interim application would be to grant the relief which can properly be granted only by the ultimate determination in the suit and the decree following thereof. If I may say so with great respect, that is the principle which also governs the present case. The defendant in this case not having admitted that the plaintiff was his son, the Court had no jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to make any order granting interim maintenance to the plaintiff. An order to that effect is not one of those interim orders which a Court has jurisdiction to make under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.
This revision petition is allowed and the order made by the learned Civil Judge is set aside. The Civil Judge will now proceed to dispose of the suit expeditiously. Having regard to the circumstances of this case, I make no order as to costs in this Court.
Alert