Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2017 (2) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (2) TMI 1464 - SC - Indian LawsPermanent injunction be granted to first Plaintiff with respect to property - restraint from interfering in peaceful enjoyment of the suit property - HELD THAT - The issues which were decided as preliminary issues with respect to redemption of the mortgage as well as with regard to Limitation could not have been decided as preliminary issues by the trial court being mixed question of law and facts. The Plaintiff has clearly averred in the plaint that there was redemption and thereafter land acquisition of the land took place which was quashed and case was decided in their favour as such they continued to be in possession of land. In the circumstances, question of factum of redemption and its legality could not have been decided as preliminary issue. Consequently, the question of limitation also, which was dependent upon the aforesaid facts, could not have decided as preliminary issue. It is made clear that any observation made in orders passed by the trial court, District court or by the High court shall not come in the way of the parties while the trial court decide the matter afresh after recording the evidence.
Issues:
Challenging legality of order by High Court in Review Application, Preliminary issues of redemption and limitation, Appellate court's decision on preliminary issues, Review Application outcome, Error in treating issues as preliminary, Remand to trial court for fresh decision. Analysis: The Appellants contested the legality of the order passed by the Madurai Bench of High Court, which reviewed and recalled previous judgments. The Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction, claiming rights to the suit property. The trial court initially decided preliminary issues of redemption and limitation in favor of the Defendants. On appeal, the Principal District Judge held these issues as mixed questions of law and facts, remanding the case back to the trial court. The High Court initially dismissed the Defendant's appeal but later allowed the Review Application, setting aside previous orders and restoring the trial court's decision. The Supreme Court found that the trial court erred in treating redemption and limitation issues as preliminary, as they were dependent on factual considerations. The Plaintiff had claimed redemption and continued possession due to a prior land acquisition case. Therefore, these issues should not have been decided in isolation. The District Court and High Court's orders were deemed appropriate, and the Supreme Court remitted the matter back to the trial court for a fresh decision, emphasizing that previous observations should not influence the new trial. The Appellant's appeal was allowed, with no costs imposed. In conclusion, the Supreme Court addressed the improper handling of issues by the trial court, leading to the remand of the case for a fresh decision. The importance of considering mixed questions of law and facts in their entirety was highlighted, ensuring a fair and comprehensive assessment in legal proceedings.
|