1999 (2) TMI 712 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the decision rendered by the lower appellate court satisfies Order 41, Rule 31, Civil Procedure Code.
2. Whether the suit could be decreed based on the defendant not establishing his defense.
3. Whether the burden of proof was rightly cast on the defendant.
4. Whether reliance could be placed on decisions of the civil court to which the appellant/defendant was not a party.
5. Whether the suit could be decreed despite Revenue Records indicating that the entire suit property does not belong to the lessor of the plaintiff.
6. Whether any act or proceedings by a person or authority without right can confer any right on the claimant.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Decision of the Lower Appellate Court
The appellant contended that the lower appellate court's decision did not satisfy the requirements of Order 41, Rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Code, particularly regarding the framing of proper points for determination. However, this issue was not argued by the appellant's counsel and thus was not considered in detail.

Issue 2: Decree Based on Defendant's Failure to Establish Defense
The appellant did not argue this issue during the appeal, and it was not addressed in the judgment.

Issue 3: Burden of Proof
The appellant did not argue this issue during the appeal, and it was not addressed in the judgment.

Issue 4: Reliance on Civil Court Decisions
The appellant argued that the judgments relied upon by the lower court were not admissible since the appellant was not a party to those suits. The court addressed this by referring to the judgments in O.S. No. 334 of 1974 and O.S. No. 333 of 1988, which established the plaintiff's possession of the property. The court held that these judgments were admissible under Section 13 of the Evidence Act as they involved assertions and recognition of rights. The court cited precedents from the Supreme Court, including Srinivas v. Narayan and Sital Das v. Sant Ram, to support the admissibility of such judgments. Consequently, the court found that the judgments were relevant and admissible evidence.

Issue 5: Decree Despite Revenue Records
The appellant contended that the Revenue Records indicated that the entire suit property did not belong to the plaintiff's lessor. The court examined the Commissioner's reports, which described the physical state of the property, including the presence of waste materials and cow dung. The court emphasized that mere acts of storing waste or tying cows did not constitute possession. The court further noted that the plaintiff had provided substantial evidence, including lease deeds and previous judgments, to establish possession. The court concluded that the appellant's claims of possession were unsubstantiated and that the plaintiff was indeed in possession of the entire property.

Issue 6: Acts by Persons Without Right
The appellant did not argue this issue during the appeal, and it was not addressed in the judgment.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the second appeal, affirming the concurrent judgments of the lower courts. The court found against the appellant on the argued issues, particularly regarding the admissibility of previous judgments and the determination of possession. The appellant was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal.