The said Late Arosji Rao, before his death, executed a Will dated 17.07.1945, bequeathing the suit property to both of his daughters in equal share. Kamala Bai passed away, and as per the Will of the original suit owner, part of the suit property was to flow to the heirs of Smt. Ansuya Bai filed a suit for partition and possession of her part of the bequeathed suit property.
1 has no right to deal with the suit property beyond her life time?
Whether the plaintiffs further proves that any leases, etc., of the suit property by the defendant no. Vide order and judgment dated 10.08.2007, the High Court did not disturb the finding of the Trial Court regarding the compromise decree being binding on the respondents, however, in respect of the additional relief of possession of part of suit property, the matter was remanded to the Trial Court, for proper adjudication.
However, while dismissing the said Special Leave Petition, this Court held that since the first appeal filed against the judgment dated 29.10.2011 was still pending before the High Court and that there were issues raised in the Special Leave Petition qua the remand order, this Court gave liberty to the petitioner(s) therein to raise all such questions before the High Court in the pending appeal without being influenced by the remand order.
Aggrieved by the dismissal of the first appeal, the petitioner(s)/appellant(s) filed another Special Leave Petition before this Court, however, the same was dismissed with liberty to approach the High Court by means of filing a review petition. It is the contention of the respondents that as far as an appeal by way of Special leave against an order passed in review is concerned, the provisions of Order XLVII rule 7 make it amply clear that the same is not permissible, that is to say, no appeal by way of Special Leave Petition against an order passed in review is maintainable.
Further, it has also been contended by the respondents, that this Court, while dismissing the original Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner(s) therein, while it granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the High Court in review, did not give the petitioners specific permission to file a subsequent Special Leave Petition before this Court. (1) An order of the Court rejecting the application shall not be appealable; but an order granting an application may be objected to at once by an appeal from the order granting the application or in an appeal from the decree or order finally passed or made in the suit.
When the Special Leave Petition came to be heard, the petitioner therein stated that he had already filed a review, and hence, sought liberty to withdraw the case, and on the same grounds, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Similarly, there is nothing in the decisions cited by the appellant to show that this Court has taken a view that against the order of the High Court rejecting an application for review, an appeal by way of Special Leave under Article 136 of the Constitution is maintainable. In the result, we hold that the Civil Appeals are not maintainable and we accordingly dismiss the same….”
Further, in the case of Sandhya Education Society (Supra), a two-Judge Bench of this Court, while accepting the principle laid down in the Vinod Kapoor Judgment (Supra), categorically held that once Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn, if no explicit liberty has been granted to approach the Supreme Court by way of a subsequent Special Leave Petition, the same cannot be allowed. 384) “(iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non- speaking order or a speaking one.
Case Title: S. NARAHARI Vs. S.R. KUMAR (2023 INSC 604)
Case Number: C.A. No.-004289-004290 / 2023
