UMAKANT B KENKRE Vs. COMMUNIDADE OF PRIOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs in a suit for declaration of the ownership of the suit property filed this revision petition. In the said suit the allegation is that the defendant No. 2 is interfering with the properties. Defendant No. 2 pleaded that he is tenant of the property. Issues have been framed on the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties. Issue No. 4 was framed on the basis of the pleadings by the defendant as follows:---

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that in the light of the pleadings of the plaintiffs the Issue No. 4 should not have been framed by the Court. The further contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that defendant No. 2 could have independently made his claim. I am at a loss to understand how the contentions of the counsel are sustainable. The framing of issues is controlled by Order XIV of C. P. C. Order XIV, Rule 1 (1) says that issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by the one party and denied by the other; (2) Material propositions are those propositions of law or fact which a plaintiff must allege in order to show a right to sue or a defendant must allege in order to constitute his defence; (3) Each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other shall form the subject of a distinct issue.

(3.) IN view of these provisions of C. P. C. I do not find any error in the orders of the Court by rejecting the application of the petitioner. The Court has rightly gone through all the allegations and counter allegations made in the plaint and in the written statement and thereafter that issues have been framed. The counsel for the petitioner has no case that the issues have been framed not on the basis of the pleadings.