2016 (10) TMI 1233 - SC - Indian Laws

Ownership 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.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the second appeal involved any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
2. Whether the High Court was justified in admitting the second appeal and framing the questions.
3. Whether the High Court was justified in remanding the case to the trial court for a de novo trial.
4. Whether the respondents were able to prove their title over the suit-land and whether the appellants were able to prove the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Substantial Question of Law:
The Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of a substantial question of law for admitting a second appeal under Section 100 of CPC. The Court referenced the case of Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari and Thiagarajan And Others vs. Sri Venugopalaswamy B. Koil And Others to elucidate the scope and requirements of Section 100. It was stated that a substantial question of law must be debatable, not previously settled, and must materially affect the decision of the case. The Court concluded that the questions framed by the High Court did not meet this criterion and were essentially questions of fact.

2. Admission and Framing of Questions:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in admitting the second appeal based on questions that did not constitute substantial questions of law. The questions formulated by the High Court were deemed to be factual rather than legal issues. The Court highlighted that the High Court failed to assess whether these questions were debatable or arguable, thus lacking jurisdiction to treat them as substantial questions of law.

3. Remanding the Case:
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court's decision to remand the case for a de novo trial. It was noted that neither party had raised the issue of an unsatisfactory trial or the need for additional evidence. The Court underscored that the High Court did not frame any substantial question of law regarding the remand, which is a prerequisite under Section 100 CPC. The trial and first appellate courts had already provided concurrent findings, which were binding on the High Court.

4. Proof of Title and Landlord-Tenant Relationship:
The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the trial and first appellate courts, which concluded that the respondents failed to establish their title over the suit-land through adverse possession. The appellants successfully proved the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. The Court reiterated that these findings were based on adequate evidence and were not perverse or contrary to any legal provisions. The High Court's interference with these findings was deemed unjustified.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restored the judgments and decrees of the trial and first appellate courts, and ordered the respondent to pay costs quantified at ?10,000 to the appellants. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to the statutory requirements of Section 100 CPC and respecting concurrent findings of fact by lower courts.