Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2016 (10) TMI 1233 - SC - Indian LawsOwnership and possession of portion of land (which is a part of entire area classified as Government Burial Poramboke) situated in Kurnool (AP) - eviction of the respondents from the suit-land - Whether the second appeal filed by the respondents involved any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code 1908? Whether the High Court was justified in admitting the respondents second appeal on the questions framed and if so whether the questions framed can be regarded as substantial questions of law arising out of the case? Whether the High Court was justified in remanding the case to the trial court for de novo trial in all the five civil suits? Whether the respondents were able to prove their title over the suit-land so also whether the appellants were able to prove the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellants and the respondents. Held that - The High Court has erred in holding that the appellants have failed to establish their title to the suit property evidently without appreciating the evidence on record in its proper perspective by making only reference to portions of evidence having once decided to reappreciate the evidence. The High Court in our opinion ought to have examined the entire evidence both oral and documentary instead of only a portion thereof especially while deciding to look into and reappreciate the evidence despite the limited scope under Section 100 CPC. In our view the learned Single Judge of the High Court has exceeded his jurisdiction in reassessing reappreciating and making a roving enquiry by entering into the factual arena of the case which is not the one contemplated under the limited scope of jurisdiction of a second appeal under Section 100 CPC. In the present case the lower appellate court fairly appreciated the evidence and arrived at a conclusion that the appellants suit was to be decreed and that the appellants are entitled to the relief as prayed for. Even assuming that another view is possible on a reappreciation of the same evidence that should not have been done by the High Court as it cannot be said that the view taken by the first appellate court was based on no material. The questions raised by High Court cannot be regarded as satisfying the test of being a substantial questions of law within the meaning of Section 100 of CPC. These questions in our view are essentially questions of fact. In any event the second appeal did not involve any substantial questions of law as contemplated under Section 100 of CPC and lastly no case was made out by the respondents before the High Court for remanding of the case to the trial court for de novo trial in all the civil suits. We also find that no party to the appeals complained at any stage of the proceedings that the trial in the suits was unsatisfactory which caused prejudice to them requiring remand of the cases to the trial court to enable them to lead additional evidence. In any event we find that the High Court also did not frame any substantial question of law on the question as to whether any case for remand of the case to the trial court has been made out and if so on what grounds? The High Court in our view further failed to see that if the first appellate court could decide the appeal on merits without there being any objection raised for remanding of the case to the trial court we are unable to appreciate as to why the High Court could not decide the appeal on merits and instead raised the issue of remand of its own and passed the order to that effect. It is a settled principle of law that in order to claim remand of the case to the trial court it is necessary for the appellant to first raise such plea and then make out a case of remand on facts. The power of the appellate court to remand the case to subordinate court is contained in order XLI Rule 23 23-A and 25 of CPC. It is therefore obligatory upon the appellant to bring the case under any of these provisions before claiming a remand - it is not proper to remand the case to High Court for deciding the appeals on merits and instead examine the merits of the case in these appeals. The only question which therefore arose for consideration before the courts below was whether the respondents were able to establish their adverse possession over the suit-land as against the State so as to entitle them to claim title in their favour over the suit-land - The respondents having set up this plea were required to prove it with the aid of satisfactory evidence as the burden of proof lay on them being the plaintiffs. The alleged gift whether executed between the two members of respondents family or not and if so whether it was valid or not did not arise out of the case. It is apart from the fact that it did not constitute any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of CPC. The reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court is not legally sustainable and is accordingly liable to be set aside - appeal allowed.
|