1989 (8) TMI 369 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Suit for perpetual injunction and possession over disputed land
- Claim of continuous possession by the defendant
- Maintainability of the suit without a declaration of title
- Interpretation of evidence and revenue records for establishing title
- Errors in judgment by the High Court

Analysis:

The case involved an appeal by the defendant in a suit for perpetual injunction over a disputed land in Bangalore City. The plaintiff-respondents claimed ownership based on the land being transferred to Guttahalli Hanumaiah in 1929 and subsequent possession by his widow and plaintiff No. 1. The trial court decreed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed the decision, citing continuous possession by the defendant since 1927 and the suit's lack of maintainability. The High Court allowed the second appeal, restoring the trial court's decree.

Regarding the suit's scope, the plaintiffs explicitly pleaded their title in the plaint, stating that the land was transferred to Guttahalli Hanumaiah in 1929. The court emphasized that the entire plaint must be considered, not just the relief portion, to determine the nature of the suit. The High Court's confusion on whether the issue of title was involved led to inconsistent observations and errors in law. The court found errors in the interpretation of evidence and revenue records by the High Court, emphasizing that revenue records do not establish title.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court's approach was unsatisfactory, leading to serious errors in judgment. The case was remitted to the High Court for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for a proper assessment of court fees. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's decision. The costs were to abide by the final result in the litigation, and the second appeal was to be reheard by the High Court.