2020 (1) TMI 1686 - SC - Indian Laws

Locus of Appellants to challenge the judgment - Consideration of substantial questions of law in Second Appeal u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure - Right to the property under an oral gift from his grandfather - Validity of Plaintiff's claim to half share in the property - Impact of Confirmation Deeds - HELD THAT - Appellants while claiming right to the property had also referred to the Deed of Confirmation dated 28.06.2012 and 29.06.2011 whereunder the Sale Deed dated 29.07.1975 executed by the father of the Plaintiff had been confirmed by the Plaintiff and if that be the position, the effect of the same was also required to be examined and determined. This is for the reason that even if the Trial Court had held the Defendants No. 6 to 9 in the suit were not bonafide purchasers, the said Confirmation Deeds dated 28.06.2012 and 29.06.2011 had come into existence subsequent to disposal of the suit on 17.04.1982 and prior to disposal of the Regular Appeal on 07.11.2012. In that regard, even if the contention on behalf of the Plaintiff that there was another Sale Deed dated 01.02.1978 for the extent of 11 Acres 27 Guntas regarding which there is no confirmation is taken note, the existing Confirmation Deeds would in any event exclude the extent of 12 Acres sold under the Sale Deed dated 29.07.1975. Thus, if the said documents which had come into existence at the fag end of the Regular Appeal was to alter the right of the parties and the purchase made by the Appellants is in the extent to which the Confirmation Deed relates, the effect thereto was also to be examined. The said consideration would be necessary in that circumstance since even if the Appellants are considered to be the purchasers during the pendency of the suit which was still a subject matter of the suit, whether Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act will come into play if it stood excluded in view of confirmation. Even otherwise the working out of the equities in the final decree proceedings in the manner of allotment of shares thereto despite purchase during pendency of suit is also an issue which will arise after a proper consideration is made by the High Court, while answering the substantial questions of law and if need be by framing additional substantial questions in that background. Since we are of the opinion that the substantial questions raised have not been appropriately dealt with and answered the matter would require reconsideration by the High Court. To enable the same, the judgment dated 19.10.2016 passed in Second Appeal passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad is set aside. The matter is remitted to the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad to restore Second Appeal on file and reconsider the same in the light of the above observation and in accordance with law. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Locus of Appellants to challenge the judgment.
2. Consideration of substantial questions of law in Second Appeal u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. Validity of Plaintiff's claim to half share in the property.
4. Impact of Confirmation Deeds on the Plaintiff's claim.
5. Compliance of decree with the judgment.

Summary:

1. Locus of Appellants to Challenge the Judgment:
The Appellants, who were not parties to the original suit or regular appeal, challenged the High Court's decision that they had no right to contest the judgment as third parties. They were purchasers of plots in the disputed land and claimed to be aggrieved by the impugned judgment.

2. Consideration of Substantial Questions of Law in Second Appeal u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The High Court had framed six substantial questions of law while admitting the Second Appeal but failed to consider and answer them appropriately. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court merely recorded contentions without providing reasoned answers to the substantial questions of law, which is contrary to the established legal position.

3. Validity of Plaintiff's Claim to Half Share in the Property:
The Plaintiff initially claimed joint ownership based on a mortgage transaction with his father and later introduced a claim of an oral gift from his grandfather. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but the Lower Appellate Court reversed this decision, declaring the Plaintiff entitled to half share of the property. The High Court did not adequately address whether the Plaintiff's claim was sustainable under Mohammedan Law or supported by evidence.

4. Impact of Confirmation Deeds on the Plaintiff's Claim:
The Appellants argued that the Plaintiff had executed Confirmation Deeds ratifying the Sale Deed executed by his father, which should negate his claim to the property. The High Court did not consider the effect of these Confirmation Deeds, which were crucial to determining the rights of the parties involved.

5. Compliance of Decree with the Judgment:
The Appellants contended that the decree drawn by the Lower Appellate Court exceeded the judgment. The High Court acknowledged this issue but did not provide a detailed examination or resolution, merely stating that the decree should conform to the judgment.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remitted the matter for reconsideration, emphasizing the need to address the substantial questions of law and the impact of the Confirmation Deeds. The High Court was directed to restore the Second Appeal and reconsider it in light of these observations.