2017 (3) TMI 1898 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking removal of trespass committed on the land - Section 4(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Public Premises and Devasthanam (Regulation) Act - HELD THAT - The need to remand the case is called for because it is found that the High Court while dismissing the Appellant s first appeal recorded a finding that since the Appellant (plaintiff) failed to prove his ownership over the suit land inasmuch as the Plaintiff did not examine his vendor to prove his sale deed the Trial Court was not justified in decreeing the Appellant s suit and granting declaration of ownership in his favour in relation to the suit land. In other words the High Court was of the view that it was obligatory upon the Appellant (plaintiff) to prove his title by examining his vendor and since it was not done the decree passed by the Trial Court in Plaintiff s favour was not legally sustainable. This finding of the High Court resulted in dismissal of the appeal and the suit as well. Assuming that the High Court was right in its view it should have given an opportunity to the Appellant to prove his title by allowing him to adduce proper evidence in support of his case and for that the High Court should have remanded the case to the Trial Court for retrial of the suit. It was more so because it is found that the Appellant suffered more damage to his case in prosecuting his own appeal. In the absence of any challenge laid by the Defendants to the part of the decree passed in Plaintiff s favour by the Trial Court the appellate Court virtually passed the order in Respondents (defendants) favour in Appellant s appeal. The High Court having held that the Plaintiff was not able to prove his title to the land in the suit due to non-examination of his vendor all that the High Court in such circumstances should have done was to remand the case to the Trial Court by affording an opportunity to the Appellant to prove his case (title to the land) and adduce proper evidence in addition to what he had already adduced. This the High Court could do by taking recourse to powers under Order 41 Rule 23A of the Code of Civil Procedure. Since it is found that the case at hand is against the State Government and local bodies it is the duty of the Court to make in the first instance every endeavor to assist the parties to settle in respect of subject matter of the suit and if for any reason settlement is not arrived at then proceed to decide the suit on merits in accordance with law. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of the appeal and suit by the High Court.
2. Failure to prove ownership over the disputed land.
3. Necessity of remanding the case for retrial on merits.

Issue 1: Dismissal of the appeal and suit by the High Court
The appeal was filed against the judgment of the High Court which dismissed the Plaintiff's suit that was partly decreed by the Trial Court. The High Court not only dismissed the appeal but also the entire suit, including the finding of the Trial Court regarding the ownership of the Appellant over the disputed land.

Issue 2: Failure to prove ownership over the disputed land
The High Court found that the Appellant failed to prove his ownership over the disputed land as he did not examine his vendor to prove the sale deed. Consequently, the High Court held that the Trial Court's decree in favor of the Appellant was not legally sustainable due to the lack of evidence establishing ownership. The High Court's finding led to the dismissal of the appeal and the suit.

Issue 3: Necessity of remanding the case for retrial on merits
The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments and perusing the case record, decided to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The Court determined that the case should be remanded to the Trial Court for a fresh decision on the suit based on its merits. The Court emphasized that the Appellant should be given an opportunity to prove his title by presenting proper evidence, and the Trial Court should retry the suit by allowing both parties to adduce additional evidence and amend their pleadings.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court directed the Trial Court to retry the suit, granting the parties the liberty to amend their pleadings and adduce additional evidence. The Court set a deadline for the Trial Court to conclude the proceedings and highlighted the duty of the Court to assist in arriving at a settlement if possible. The appeal succeeded, and the Trial Court was instructed to decide the suit in line with the observations made by the Supreme Court.