Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2017 (3) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1898 - SC - Indian LawsSeeking removal of trespass committed on the land - Section 4(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Public Premises and Devasthanam (Regulation) Act - HELD THAT:- The need to remand the case is called for because it is found that the High Court while dismissing the Appellant's first appeal recorded a finding that since the Appellant (plaintiff) failed to prove his ownership over the suit land inasmuch as the Plaintiff did not examine his vendor to prove his sale deed, the Trial Court was not justified in decreeing the Appellant's suit and granting declaration of ownership in his favour in relation to the suit land. In other words, the High Court was of the view that it was obligatory upon the Appellant (plaintiff) to prove his title by examining his vendor and since it was not done, the decree passed by the Trial Court in Plaintiff's favour was not legally sustainable. This finding of the High Court resulted in dismissal of the appeal and the suit as well. Assuming that the High Court was right in its view, it should have given an opportunity to the Appellant to prove his title by allowing him to adduce proper evidence in support of his case and for that, the High Court should have remanded the case to the Trial Court for retrial of the suit. It was more so because it is found that the Appellant suffered more damage to his case in prosecuting his own appeal. In the absence of any challenge laid by the Defendants to the part of the decree passed in Plaintiff's favour by the Trial Court, the appellate Court virtually passed the order in Respondents' (defendants) favour in Appellant's appeal. The High Court having held that the Plaintiff was not able to prove his title to the land in the suit due to non-examination of his vendor, all that the High Court, in such circumstances, should have done was to remand the case to the Trial Court by affording an opportunity to the Appellant to prove his case (title to the land) and adduce proper evidence in addition to what he had already adduced. This, the High Court could do by taking recourse to powers under Order 41 Rule 23A of the Code of Civil Procedure. Since it is found that the case at hand is against the State Government and local bodies, it is the duty of the Court to make, in the first instance, every endeavor to assist the parties to settle in respect of subject matter of the suit and, if for any reason, settlement is not arrived at then proceed to decide the suit on merits in accordance with law. Appeal allowed.
|