2017 (11) TMI 2055 - SC - Indian Laws

Second appeal - Illegal possession of suit shop - possession of the suit shop without any right, title and interest of any nature - whether the Trial Court and First appellate Court decided the case contrary to the pleadings and evidence and especially contrary to the recitals of EX-P. 15? - HELD THAT - The approach of the High Court in deciding the second appeal, which resulted in allowing the Respondent's appeal, is wholly perverse and against the well settled principle of law applicable to second appeals. In the absence of any question of law framed on any of the adverse findings recorded by the two Courts below against the Respondent, those findings attained finality. In other words, since no error was noticed in any of the findings of the two Courts below, the High Court did not frame any substantial question in relation to such findings, which became final for want of any challenge. The High Court, however, framed one general question of law as to whether the findings of the two Courts below were contrary to the pleadings and evidence and especially to Ex-P-15 and held, by placing reliance on Ex. P-15, that the Respondent was occupying the suit shop as tenant and, therefore, the remedy of the Appellant was in filing a tenancy suit against the Respondent and to claim his eviction from the suit shop under the State tenancy laws or/and Transfer of Property Act in such suit but not in the present suit which is based on the strength of his title. The High Court, with this finding, accordingly allowed the appeal and dismissed the Appellant's suit as being misconceived. The defense of the Respondent was that he had denied the Appellant's title over the suit shop and then set up a plea of adverse possession contending that he has become the owner of the suit shop by virtue of adverse possession, which according to him, was from time immemorial - It was clear that the Respondent never claimed that he was in possession of the suit shop as tenant of the Appellant's predecessor-in-title. On the other hand, the Respondent had asserted his ownership right over the suit shop on the strength of his long adverse possession. The High Court was not right in holding that the Respondent was in occupation of the suit shop as tenant and that the remedy of the Appellant was to file a civil suit to claim eviction under the Rent Laws. This finding is contrary to the pleadings and evidence. It is also otherwise not legally sustainable for want of any evidence adduced by the Respondent in support thereof. The Trial Court and First Appellate Court were justified in holding the Appellant to be the owner of the suit shop, having purchased the same vide registered sale deed dated 20.09.1997 from its previous owner. It was also rightly held that the Respondent was in possession of the suit shop as an encroacher and failed to prove his adverse possession over the suit shop - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Ownership dispute over a shop in a civil suit.
2. Adverse possession claim by the defendant.
3. Legal interpretation of tenancy laws and Transfer of Property Act.
4. Applicability of second appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Ownership Dispute:
The Plaintiff filed a civil suit claiming possession of a shop purchased from the previous owner, alleging illegal possession by the Defendant. The Trial Court decreed in favor of the Plaintiff, establishing ownership and entitlement to eviction and mesne profits. The First Appellate Court upheld this decision.

Adverse Possession Claim:
The Defendant, in response, denied the Plaintiff's title and asserted adverse possession rights predating the Plaintiff's purchase. The Trial Court found the Defendant's claim unsubstantiated. The High Court, however, allowed the Second Appeal, holding the Defendant as a tenant and directing the Plaintiff to seek remedy under tenancy laws.

Interpretation of Tenancy Laws:
The High Court's decision was based on considering the Defendant as a tenant, suggesting the Plaintiff to file a tenancy suit for eviction. However, the Supreme Court found this interpretation erroneous as the Defendant did not establish tenancy and failed to provide evidence supporting such a claim.

Applicability of Second Appeals:
The Supreme Court critiqued the High Court's approach in the Second Appeal, emphasizing the need to frame substantial questions of law. The High Court's failure to address adverse findings against the Defendant and its misinterpretation of the pleadings and evidence led to the erroneous decision. The Supreme Court restored the Trial Court and First Appellate Court judgments, affirming the Plaintiff's ownership and right to possession.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment clarified the legal position on ownership disputes, adverse possession claims, and the correct application of tenancy laws. The decision highlighted the importance of framing substantial questions of law in second appeals and ensuring adherence to pleadings and evidence in legal proceedings.