Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Shankar Raoji Dharrao(D) ... vs Pandit Tukaram Dharrao (D) Tr.Lrs. ... on 26 September, 2019
Bench: Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran, S. Ravindra Bhat
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8959 OF 2014
SHANKAR RAOJI DHARRAO(D) THR.
LRS. & ORS. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
PANDIT TUKARAM DHARRAO (D) THR. LRS. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. In the instant matter, the High Court allowed the amendment application concerning the pleading of adverse possession raised by the defendant(s) at the second appellate stage. The Trial Court, as well as the first appellate court, had decided in favour of the plaintiff(s). The Trial Court decreed the suit while the First Appellate Court maintained the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.
2. In the appeal, the High Court has called for the finding by the Trial Court and first appellate Court on the limited issue of adverse possession, and while approving the findings, the High court has Signature Not Verified allowed second appeal holding that defendant has been Digitally signed by CHARANJEET KAUR Date: 2019.10.05 12:12:03 IST Reason: able to prove adverse possession.
2
3. In our opinion, the High Court ought to have remanded the matter instead of calling the findings after allowing the amendment relating to adverse possession. Though it was too late to allow an amendment based on adverse possession, the order was not questioned by the plaintiff(s) and was permitted to attain finality.
4. In the circumstances, we are faced with two sets of contradictory findings as to possession in favour of the plaintiff(s) recorded earlier by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court while passing the main judgment and findings recorded on the limited issue of adverse possession in favour of the defendant(s). It is not open at this stage to appreciate which of the findings as to the factum of possession is correct. An anomalous situation has arisen; as such, we set aside the findings on all the issues recorded by the First Appellate Court and by the High Court. We request the First Appellate Court to decide the First Appeal on all issues considering the question of adverse possession also afresh. The judgment and decree passed by the High Court as well as by the First Appellate Court are set aside, and the matter is remitted to the First Appellate Court to decide the First Appeal in accordance with law, 3 uninfluenced by the reasoning given earlier.
5. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
6. Let the case be heard and decided within six months from the date of appearance of the parties. The parties to appear before the First Appellate Court on 9th December, 2019.
7. Parties to bear their costs.
..................J. [ ARUN MISHRA ] ...................J. [ VINEET SARAN ] ....................J. [ S. RAVINDRA BHAT ] NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 26, 2019.
4 ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.4 SECTION III S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No. 8959/2014 SHANKAR RAOJI DHARRAO(D) THR.LRS. ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS PANDIT TUKARAM DHARRAO (D) THR.LRS. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 2/2012 - STAY APPLICATION) Date : 26-09-2019 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT For Appellant(s) Mr. Anish R. Shah, Adv.
Mr. Brij Kishor Sah, Adv. Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, AOR For Respondent(s) Ms. Neela Gokhale, Adv.
Ms. Shruti Dixit, Adv.
Mr. Ilam Paridi, Adv.
Ms. Aparna Jha, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application stands disposed of.
[ CHARANJEET KAUR ] [ JAGDISH CHANDER ]
A.R.-CUM-P.S. COURT MASTER
[ Signed order is placed on the file ]