2016 (6) TMI 1435 - SC - Indian Laws

Owner of the suit land - title over the suit land - plot of land situated near Krishnarajapuram Railway Station, which is around 14 KMs away from Bangalore city - HELD THAT - It is a settled principle of law that a right to file first appeal against the decree Under Section 96 of the Code is a valuable legal right of the litigant. The jurisdiction of the first appellate Court while hearing the first appeal is very wide like that of the Trial Court and it is open to the Appellant to attack all findings of fact or/and of law in first appeal. It is the duty of the first appellate Court to appreciate the entire evidence and may come to a conclusion different from that of the Trial Court. Similarly, the powers of the first appellate Court while deciding the first appeal are indeed well defined by various judicial pronouncements of this Court and are, therefore, no more res integra. It is apposite to take note of the law on this issue. Application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code - HELD THAT - The High Court committed another error when it rejected the application filed by the Appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code. This application should have been allowed for more than one reason. First, there was no one to oppose the application. In other words, the Respondents were neither served with the notice of appeal and nor served with the application and hence they did not oppose the application. Second, the Appellant averred in the application as to why they could not file the additional evidence earlier in civil suit and why there was delay on their part in filing such evidence at the appellate stage. Third, the averments in the application were supported with an affidavit, which remained un-rebutted. Fourth, the application also contained necessary averment as to why the additional evidence was necessary to decide the real controversy involved in appeal. Fifth, the additional evidence being in the nature of public documents and pertained to suit land, the same should have been taken on record and lastly, the Appellant being the Union of India was entitled to legitimately claim more indulgence in such procedural matters due to their peculiar set up and way of working - the application filed by the Appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code deserved to be allowed and is accordingly allowed by permitting the Appellant to file additional evidence. The other inevitable consequence is that the case has to be remanded either to the High Court for deciding the appeal afresh on merits or to the Trial Court for deciding the civil suit afresh on merits in accordance with law. The civil suit is now restored to its file. The Trial Court, i.e., District and Sessions Judge Bengaluru, is directed to retry the civil suit on merits. The additional evidence filed by the Appellant is taken on record. The Respondents are afforded an opportunity to file additional evidence in support of their case in rebuttal - the District and Sessions Judge Bengaluru are directed to decide the civil suit expeditiously and preferably within 6 months from the date of party's appearance before him. Parties to appear before the District and Sessions Judge Bengaluru on 01.08.2016. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Ownership of the suit land.
2. Barred by limitation.
3. Dismissal of the first appeal in limine.
4. Application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for additional evidence.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Ownership of the Suit Land:
The primary dispute revolved around the ownership of a plot of land situated near Krishnarajapuram Railway Station. The Appellant (Union of India - Railways) claimed ownership and sought a declaration to that effect, while the Respondents asserted their title over the land through their predecessors, who allegedly acquired occupancy rights under State Tenancy Laws.

2. Barred by Limitation:
The Trial Court dismissed the suit on the grounds that it was barred by limitation and that the Appellant failed to prove their title over the suit land due to insufficient evidence. Conversely, the Respondents were able to prove their title.

3. Dismissal of the First Appeal in Limine:
The High Court dismissed the Appellant's first appeal in limine without admitting it for final hearing, which the Supreme Court found erroneous. The Supreme Court emphasized that a first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a valuable legal right and should not be dismissed casually. The appellate court is required to appreciate the entire evidence and may arrive at a different conclusion from the Trial Court.

4. Application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for Additional Evidence:
The Appellant filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 to adduce additional evidence, which was dismissed by the High Court. The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in rejecting this application. The additional evidence included documents from the State Land Revenue department, which were relevant for deciding the ownership issue. The Supreme Court allowed the application, noting that the Respondents were not served with the notice of appeal or the application and hence did not oppose it. The additional evidence was deemed necessary to decide the real controversy involved in the appeal.

Judgment and Directions:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of both the Trial Court and the High Court, and remanded the case to the Trial Court (District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru) for a fresh decision on merits. The additional evidence filed by the Appellant was taken on record, and the Respondents were given an opportunity to file additional evidence in rebuttal. The Trial Court was directed to decide the civil suit expeditiously within six months from the date of the parties' appearance.

The Supreme Court also suggested that the Trial Court consider appointing a Court Commissioner to undertake a spot inspection of the suit land to verify its exact location, area, and boundaries. The decision of the Trial Court was to be based strictly on the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, uninfluenced by the previous findings of the lower courts.