1999 (2) TMI 679 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interference by the High Court with the finding of fact without framing a substantial question of law.
2. Discretionary power of the Supreme Court under Article 136 post-grant of special leave.
3. Necessity to invoke Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
4. Relief to be granted.

Summary:

Point 1:
The High Court erred by not framing a substantial question of law as required by section 100 CPC. The Supreme Court cited precedents, emphasizing that the High Court should have framed such a question before disposing of the Second Appeal. The High Court also improperly interfered with the factual findings of the lower appellate court, which were based on the rejection of oral evidence and other relevant circumstances. Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's finding on this point.

Points 2 and 3:
The Supreme Court discussed the discretionary power under Article 136, which remains with the Court even after the grant of special leave. The Court noted that the plaintiff had knowledge of the trespass in December 1967 but did not take timely action, allowing the defendant to construct two rooms. Given the long delay and the fact that the rooms have existed for 30 years, the Court decided not to interfere with the High Court's decree dismissing the suit for possession. The Court held that the plaintiff could be adequately compensated by damages. Consequently, there was no need to invoke Article 142.

Point 4:
The Supreme Court sought an equitable resolution by determining the value of the land occupied by the defendant as of 19.1.1987. The case was remitted to the trial court to ascertain this value, with both parties allowed to present evidence. The defendant was directed to pay this amount to the plaintiff, failing which the plaintiff could recover it as a money decree. The appeal was dismissed with this modification, and no order as to costs was made.