- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Subha Bibi v. Hara Lal Das And Anr.
Structured Summary of the Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion arises from an appeal in which the central question posed to the Court was whether the terms of Section 317 of the Code of Civil Procedure bar the suit. The opinion reviews prior reported decisions relating to that question and considers whether the appeal should be referred to a Full Bench for determination. After examination of authorities, the Court declined to refer the matter to a Full Bench and dismissed the appeal with costs.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the terms of Section 317 of the Code of Civil Procedure bar the suit.
- Whether the appellants' contention (that Section 317 bars the suit) requires reference to a Full Bench before it can be given effect.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The appellant contended that Section 317 of the Code of Civil Procedure bars the suit (this is identified as the "only real question" for decision).
- The appellant relied in his favour on a recent decision, Rama Kurup v. Sridevi, I.L.R. 16 Mad. 290, in which the learned Judges concluded that Kanizak Sukina v. Monohur Das (I.L.R. 12 Cal. 204) was wrong.
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent's separate legal arguments; instead the Court summarizes prior authorities that support and oppose the appellant's contention.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Kanizak Sukina v. Monohur Das, I.L.R. 12 Cal. 204 | Cited as authority relevant to the question whether Section 317 bars the suit; presented by the Court as supporting the position contrary to the appellant's contention. | The Court expressly agreed with the judgment of Mitter and Macpherson, JJ., in this case and relied on it; this agreement formed a primary basis for declining to refer the matter to a Full Bench and for dismissing the appeal. |
| Seetanath Ghose v. Madhub Narain Roy Chowdhry, 1 W.R. 329 | Cited as a reported decision opposing the appellant's contention regarding Section 317. | The Court noted that Kanizak Sukina supports this case; it is one of the authorities the Court treated as against the appellant's contention. |
| Khyrat Ali v. Syfullah Khan, 8 W.R. 130 | Cited as an additional reported decision relevant to the Section 317 question and characterized as not so directly in point but supportive of the line of authority cited against the appellant. | The Court recorded this decision among those that supported the view contrary to the appellant and relied on the supporting cluster of authorities. |
| Sohun Lall v. Lala Gya Pershad, 6 N.W. 265 (Allahabad) | Cited as an Allahabad decision running against the appellant's contention. | The Court listed this as one of two Allahabad cases opposed to the appellant's contention; it formed part of the body of adverse authority. |
| Puran Mal v. Ali Khan, I.L.R. 1 All. 285 (Allahabad) | Cited as another Allahabad decision adverse to the appellant's contention on Section 317. | The Court included this case among the authorities opposing the appellant's position. |
| Rama Kurup v. Sridevi, I.L.R. 16 Mad. 290 | Cited by the appellant as a recent decision holding that Kanizak Sukina was wrong (thus favouring the appellant's position). | The Court acknowledged this recent Madras decision in the appellant's favour but observed that the learned Judges there did not appear to have been referred to the other decisions relied on in opposition. The Court did not follow that decision in preference to the cluster of earlier authorities. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court framed the narrow question for decision as whether Section 317 of the Code of Civil Procedure bars the suit. It then surveyed the reported authorities relevant to that question. The Court identified at least three reported cases of its own (Kanizak Sukina; Seetanath Ghose; Khyrat Ali) that ran against the appellant's contention, and two Allahabad decisions (Sohun Lall; Puran Mal) that also opposed the appellant's position.
The Court noted that the appellant had a recent decision in his favour (Rama Kurup v. Sridevi), in which the learned Judges concluded that Kanizak Sukina was wrong. However, the Court observed that in Rama Kurup the learned Judges did not seem to have been referred to the other decisions relied upon by the Court in the present matter.
The Court explained that, before giving effect to the appellants' contention (which would be to depart from the earlier cluster of authorities), it would have been necessary to refer the case to a Full Bench. Rather than do so, the Court stated that it agreed with the reasoning of Mitter and Macpherson, JJ., in Kanizak Sukina, which the Court viewed as supporting the line of decisions (including Seetanath Ghose and Khyrat Ali) contrary to the appellant's contention. On that basis the Court declined to refer the matter to a Full Bench and proceeded to dispose of the appeal.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Implications:
- The direct effect of the Court's decision is that the appellant's appeal fails and the appeal is dismissed with an award of costs against the appellant as ordered by the Court.
- The Court declined to refer the question to a Full Bench and expressly adhered to the line of authority represented by Kanizak Sukina (Mitter and Macpherson, JJ.), Seetanath Ghose, and Khyrat Ali, rather than adopting the recent Madras decision (Rama Kurup) cited by the appellant.
- The opinion does not purport to establish a new precedent beyond the Court's explicit agreement with the existing reported decisions; it resolves the appeal on the basis of those authorities and procedural disposition (dismissal with costs).
1. The only real question for our decision is whether the terms of Section 317 of the Code of Civil Procedure bar the suit. As against the appellant's contention there are to be found at least three reported cases of this Court, Kanizak Sukina v. Monohur Das I.L.R. 12 Cal. 204, Seetanath Ghose v. Madhub Narain Roy Chowdhry 1 W.R. 329, and a third case, not so much in point, Khyrat Ali v. Syfullah Khan 8 W.R. 130. There are also against the appellant's contention two Allahabad cases, Sohun Lall v. Lala Gya Pershad 6 N.W. 265, and Puran Mal. v. Ali Khan I.L.R. 1 All. 285.
2. It is true that the appellant has in his favour a very recent case--Rama Kurup v. Sridevi I.L.R. 16 Mad. 290--in which the learned Judges came to the conclusion that the case of Kanizak Sukina v. Monohur Das I.L.R. 12 Cal. 204, was wrong; but in that case the learned Judges do not seem to have been referred to any of the other decisions.
3. Before we could give effect to the appellants' contention we should have to refer the case to a Full Bench : but as we agree with the judgment of Mitter and Macpherson, JJ., in Kanizak Sukina v. Monohur Das I.L.R. 12 Cal. 204, which supports the cases of Seetanath Ghose v. Madhub Narain Roy Chowdhry 1 W.R. 329, and Khyrat Ali v. Syfullah Khan 8 W.R. 130, we decline to refer this case to a Full Bench, and dismiss the appeal with costs.
Alert