IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 346 OF 2004

LALITA PRASAD & ORS.  ..... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

GYAN SINGH & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6199 of 2001

O R D E R

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 346 OF 2009

We  have  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

parties.

The  plaint  filed  by  the  appellant  has  been  

rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil  

Procedure on the ground that no cause of action had  

been made out.  The order of the trial court has been

affirmed  by  the  High  Court  in  First  Appeal  and  

thereafter by the Division Bench in a Letters Patent  

Appeal.  The courts below have been influenced by the  

fact that in a litigation inter se qua the properties  

in question culminating in a special leave petition in  

this Court which was also dismissed,  it had been found  

that  the  Quanoon  Mal  of  Gwalior  State  would  be  

applicable to the land in question and in that view of  

the matter, the appellants, being the daughter's sons  

of  the  deceased,  land  owner  Roop  Chand  were  not  

entitled to succeed to the property.

Mr. Shiv Pujan Singh, the learned counsel for  

the appellant has, however, argued that in the plaint  

itself it had been averred in the alternative that the  

land in question would be covered by the Ryotwari Act  

and, therefore, it was incumbent on the trial court and  

the other courts to have given a finding as to which of  

the two Acts that had been referred to in the plaint  

would be applicable to the matter and that this was a  

matter for trial.  

We  find  from the  order of the trial court  

that the fact that  the dispute would be  covered by

the Quanoon Mal  of Gwalior  State was not  disputed by  

the appellants.  This appears to be so because in the  

earlier litigation referred to above,  a finding that  

the Quanoon  Mal of Gwalior State would be applicable  

to the property  in dispute had been affirmed right  

upto this Court.  In this view of the matter, we  are  

of  the  opinion  that  no  interference  is  called  for.  

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6199 of 2001

Application  seeking  substitution  of  the  legal  

representatives of the deceased respondent No. 3 is  

allowed.

In the light of the fact that we have dismissed  

the  connected  Appeal  viz.  Civil  Appeal  No.  346  of  

2004,  we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the  

High Court dated 12th May, 2009 and remit the matter to  

the High Court to decide the matter afresh.   

There will be no order as to costs.

    ..................J      [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

    ..................J      [J.M. PANCHAL]

NEW DELHI

SEPTEMBER  10, 2009.