9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 866 - SC - Indian LawsDecree of recovery of possession of the suit premises - Refusal of relief of possession especially when the Lower Appellate Court granted relief of mesne profits till delivery of possession - entitlement to a declaration in respect of half of the suit property overlooking the pleadings and the documents of title - substantial question of law or not - burden of proof - HELD THAT - To be substantial , a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by the law of the land or any binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case and/or the rights of the parties before it, if answered either way - To be a question of law involved in the case , there must be first, a foundation for it laid in the pleadings, and the question should emerge from the sustainable findings of fact, arrived at by Courts of facts, and it must be necessary to decide that question of law for a just and proper decision of the case. Where no such question of law, nor even a mixed question of law and fact was urged before the Trial Court or the First Appellate Court, as in this case, a second appeal cannot be entertained - Whether a question of law is a substantial one and whether such question is involved in the case or not, would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The paramount overall consideration is the need for striking a judicious balance between the indispensable obligation to do justice at all stages and the impelling necessity of avoiding prolongation in the life of any lis. The First Appellate Court examined the evidence on record at length, and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, that the Appellant-Defendant was owner of a part of the suit premises and the Respondent-Plaintiff was owner of the other part of the suit premises. This finding is based on cogent and binding documents of title, including the registered deeds of conveyance by which the respective predecessors-in-interest of the Appellant-Defendant and Respondent-Plaintiff had acquired title over the suit premises. There was no erroneous inference from any proved fact. Nor had the burden of proof erroneously been shifted. The second question of law, that is, the question of whether the First Appellate Court was right in holding that the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration of title in respect of half of the suit property, has, as observed above, been decided in favour of the Respondent Plaintiff, based on pleadings and evidence. The conclusion of the First Appellate Court, of the entitlement of the Respondent Plaintiff to a declaration in respect of his half share in the suit property does not warrant interference in a second appeal - The first question framed by the High Court, that is, the question of whether the Lower Court /Appellate Court was right in refusing the Respondent Plaintiff relief of possession, when the Appellate Court had granted mesne profits to the Respondent Plaintiff, is based on the erroneous factual premises that the First Appellate Court had granted mesne profits to the Respondent Plaintiff, which the First Appellate Court had not done. The High Court erred in law in proceeding to allow possession to the Respondent-Plaintiff on the ground that the Appellant-Defendant had not taken the defence of adverse possession, ignoring the well established principle that the Plaintiff s claim to reliefs is to be decided on the strength of the Plaintiff s case and not the weakness, if any, in the opponent s case - the Appellant-Defendant claimed the right of ownership of the suit property on the basis of a deed of conveyance, executed over 75 years ago. The Appellant- Defendant has claimed continuous possession since the year 1966 on the strength of a deed of release executed by his father. In other words, the Appellant-Defendant has claimed to be in possession of the suit premises, as owner, for almost 28 years prior to the institution of suit. When no substantial question of law is formulated, but a Second Appeal is decided by the High Court, the judgment of the High Court is vitiated in law. The judgment and order of the High Court under appeal is set aside - Appeal allowed.
Issues involved:
1. Declaration of title to the suit property. 2. Recovery of possession of the suit property. 3. Determination of tenancy status. 4. Entitlement to arrears of rent/occupation charges and future profits. 5. Substantial questions of law in a second appeal. Issue-wise detailed analysis: 1. Declaration of Title to the Suit Property: The Appellant claimed ownership of the suit premises based on a registered deed of sale dated 17.02.1938, asserting continuous possession as the owner. Conversely, the Respondent Plaintiff asserted ownership through a registered sale deed dated 17.09.1940, alleging the property was initially let out to the Appellant's father. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, finding the Respondent Plaintiff failed to prove the purchase by his father. The First Appellate Court, however, analyzed oral and documentary evidence, concluding that the Appellant's father only purchased a portion of the suit premises, while the other portion was purchased by the Respondent Plaintiff's father, thus entitling the Respondent Plaintiff to a declaration of title over half of the suit premises. 2. Recovery of Possession of the Suit Property: The Trial Court denied the Respondent Plaintiff's claim for possession, which was upheld by the First Appellate Court. The High Court, however, reversed this finding, granting the Respondent Plaintiff recovery of possession for half of the suit premises, asserting that the First Appellate Court's refusal of possession contradicted its grant of mesne profits. The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in its conclusion, emphasizing that a decree of possession does not automatically follow a declaration of title, and possession must be established by the Plaintiff. 3. Determination of Tenancy Status: The Trial Court found no evidence of a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, a finding concurred by the First Appellate Court. The Respondent Plaintiff failed to produce any rent agreement, receipts, or tax payments to substantiate the claim of tenancy. Both lower courts concluded that the Appellant was not a tenant but claimed ownership of the property. 4. Entitlement to Arrears of Rent/Occupation Charges and Future Profits: The Respondent Plaintiff sought a decree for arrears of rent and future profits, which was initially dismissed by the Trial Court. The First Appellate Court, while denying recovery of possession, allowed recovery of income derived from the portion of the suit premises owned by the Respondent Plaintiff, which the High Court erroneously interpreted as mesne profits. The Supreme Court clarified that the First Appellate Court's order was for reimbursement of income or charges for use and occupation, not mesne profits. 5. Substantial Questions of Law in a Second Appeal: The Supreme Court emphasized that a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC is limited to substantial questions of law. The High Court framed two questions, but the Supreme Court found neither constituted substantial questions of law. The High Court's decision to allow possession was based on erroneous premises, and it failed to adhere to the requirement of identifying substantial questions of law. The Supreme Court reiterated that the Plaintiff's claim must be established on its own merits, not on the weakness of the Defendant's case, and highlighted the necessity of proving possession and overcoming the bar of limitation. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment to the extent it allowed the Respondent Plaintiff's second appeal, and restored the First Appellate Court's judgment, emphasizing the proper application of legal principles and the necessity of substantial questions of law in second appeals.
|
