Gujarat High Court
Sandipbhai Arjanbhai Korat vs Atul Dilsukhbhai Sheth on 28 March, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 583 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 583 of 2022
With
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 584 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 584 of 2022
With
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 585 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 585 of 2022
With
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 586 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 586 of 2022
With
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 587 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 587 of 2022
With
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 588 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 588 of 2022
With
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 589 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 589 of 2022
With
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 590 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 590 of 2022
With
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 591 of 2022
With
Page 1 of 51
Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024
undefined
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 591 of 2022
With
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 592 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 592 of 2022
With
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 593 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 593 of 2022
With
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 594 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 594 of 2022
With
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 595 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 595 of 2022
With
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 596 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 596 of 2022
With
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 597 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 597 of 2022
With
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 598 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 598 of 2022
With
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 599 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 599 of 2022
With
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 106 of 2023
Page 2 of 51
Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024
undefined
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2023
In R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 106 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
SANDIPBHAI ARJANBHAI KORAT & ORS.
Versus
ATUL DILSUKHBHAI SHETH
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NIRAV THAKKAR, ADVOCATE for
MS ROMA I. FIDELIS, ADVOCATE for the Appellants
MR RR MARSHALL, SENIOR ADVOCATE with
MR DAIFRAZ HAVEWALLA & MR RAJU N DESAI, ADVOCATES for the
Respondent
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 28/03/2024
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1.1 The present group of appeals, under Section 100 of Page 3 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the appellant/s - original plaintiff/s, arises from the impugned judgment and decree dated 05.03.2022 passed by the learned 10 th Additional District Judge, Rajkot in Regular Civil Appeal No.43 of 2019 and other cognate appeals, confirming the judgment and decree dated 09.01.2019 passed by the learned 3 rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot in Regular Civil Suit No.256 of 2012 and other cognate suits, which are dismissed. 1.2 Since the facts, background, issues, land and the parties are identical, for the sake of avoiding repetition, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, all these appeals are heard and decided together by this Court today, by this common judgment.
2. The brief facts of the present group of appeals are as under :
2.1 The land bearing Survey No.2 paiki situated at Mouje : Village - Mota Mava, District : Rajkot (for short 'the land in question') originally belonged to Chatursinh Jadeja and Khengarji Jadeja. They are real brothers, therefore, two branches of one father.
2.2 After the demise of Chatursinh Jadeja on 14.03.1996, the names of his legal heirs were entered into Page 4 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined the revenue record i.e. Dhirajben and Aniruddhasinh. Hence, Khengarji, Dhirajben and Aniruddhasinh were the owners of the land in question.
2.3 There are about ten legal heirs from both branches.
2.4 It is alleged that Khengarji Jadeja and Aniruddhasinh Chatursinh Jadeja executed power of attorney on 16.05.1996 in favour of Harilal Vashrambhai Patel.
2.5 It is further alleged that son of Khengarji viz., Arvindsinh Khengarji Jadeja and son of Chatursinh viz., Aniruddhasinh Chatursinh Jadeja have executed power of attorney on 31.07.2000 in favour of Harilal Vashrambhai Patel.
2.6 It is alleged that the said power of attorney holder
- Harilal Vashrambhai Patel has created proposed Society viz., Shyam Park Cooperative Housing Society Limited (Proposed), plotting scheme is floated and sold the plots to various persons by executing an agreement to sell by the said so-called power of attorney holder (Harilal Vashrambhai Patel) in the year 2005, which is not converted into non-
agriculture land till date. Possession is also handed over to the purchasers.
Page 5 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined 2.7 The original land owners are residing in Bhavnagar. The land in question is situated at Rajkot. 2.8 Soon after came to know about the said Society (Proposed), plotting scheme and possession by way of agreement to sell, The Karta of branch of Khengarji viz., Arvindsinh Khengarji Jadeja and the Karta of branch of Chatursinh viz., Aniruddhasinh Chatursinh Jadeja have filed a suit being Special Civil Suit No.80 of 2006, for vacant possession of the land in question, against the said plot holders.
2.9 In the said suit, the learned trial Court has granted status-quo qua the possession of the land in question, since it was the case of the defendants - plot holders - present appellants that they have been in possession since the year 2005. The said suit is still pending before the learned trial Court.
2.10 During pendency of the said suit, the original land owners have sold the land in question to the present respondent by way of a registered sale deed on 20.05.2008. 2.11 Since it is an agricultural land, the revenue entry to the effect of the sale deed dated 20.05.2008 has been Page 6 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined mutated in the revenue record, after following due process. 2.12 After purchasing the land in question by the present respondent, he has entered into the shoes of the original land owners in Special Civil Suit No.80 of 2006 as plaintiff.
2.13 In the year 2012, the plot holders have filed suit/s being Regular Civil Suit No.256 of 2012 and others, for specific performance, declaration and permanent injunction and thereby seeking cancellation of the registered sale deed executed by the original land owners in favour of the purchaser - present respondent.
2.14 Out of them, many suits filed by the plot holders were compromised and some of them, including Regular Civil Suit No.256 of 2012, are dismissed by the learned trial Court, on merit, whereby the learned trial Court did not interfere in the registered sale deed and observed that the land is still an agriculture land and so-called power of attorney is forged and bogus, on which the agreement to sell has been executed in favour of the plot holders. 2.15 Being aggrieved, the plot holders have preferred an appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No.43 of 2019 and others before the learned appellate Court below. The same are also Page 7 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined dismissed and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court.
2.16 It is these judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below which are challenged by the plot holders with the concurrent findings, before this Court in this group of second appeals. The details of this group of second appeals are as under, where the respondent/defendant - Atul Dilsukhbhai Sheth is the same and only :
Sl. Second Name of Appellant / Plaintiff Regular Civil Regular No. Appeal and Plot No. Suit No. Civil Appeal No. No. (Year-2022) 1 583/2022 Sandipbhai Arjanbhai Korat 256/2012 43/2019 (Plot No.60) (Main Matter) 2 584/2022 Pravinbhai Bhikhbhai Sakhiya 243/2012 37/2019 (Plot No.34) 3 585/2022 Babubhai Bhikhabhai Tilala 387/2010 17/2019 (Plot No. 68) 4 586/2022 Govindbhai Valjibhai Busa & 225/2012 25/2019 Ors. (Plot No. 83) 5 587/2022 Maheshbhai Laljibhai Sakhiya 228/2012 28/2019 (Plot No. 31) 6 588/2022 Manojbhai Parsottambhai Patel 263/2012 45/2019 (Plot No. 49) 7 589/2022 Jayantibhai Nathabhai Patel 222/2012 24/2019 (Plot No. 87) 8 590/2022 Batukbhai Babubhai Bhalsor 220/2012 22/2019 (Plot No. 12) 9 591/2022 Bhavanbhai Bhimjibhai Korat 226/2012 26/2019 (Plot No. 56) 10 592/2022 Babubhai Dhirajbhai 233/2012 31/2019 Dhrangdhariya (Plot No. 67) Page 8 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined 11 593/2022 Kamleshbhai Naranbhai Gujarati 245/2012 39/2019 (Plot No. 47) 12 594/2022 Mansukhbhai Valjibhai Musa 244/2012 38/2019 (Plot No. 84) 13 595/2022 Kherajbhai Govindbhai Pitroda 254/2012 42/2019 (Plot No. 48) 14 596/2022 Govindbhai Bhanabhai Gamdha 259/2012 44/2019 (Plot No. 29) 15 597/2022 Prakashbhai Nanjibhai Khunt 388/2012 19/2019 (Plot No. 69) 16 598/2022 Nanjibhai Ghusabhai Khunt 390/2012 20/2019 (Plot No. 70) 17 599/2022 Thakarshibhai Bhikhabhai 241/2012 36/2019 Sakhiya (Plot No. 35) 18 106/2023 Laljibhai Nanjibhai Patel 389/2010 18/2019 (Plot No. 71)
3. Heard learned advocates at length. It is noted that this group of appeals awaits admission. 4.1 Learned advocate Mr.Nirav Thakkar for learned advocate Ms. Roma I. Fidelis for the appellants has submitted that the appellant - plot holder/s has purchased the suit property from the power of attorney holder to whom the original owner had given authority to develop the entire parcel of land, the sub-plotting was done and after following due procedure, the plots were sold to the different person by the said power of attorney holder, in which, one of the plots was purchased by the appellant in the year 2000, and thereafter, the electricity connection was also obtained, the impact fee was duly paid and the appellant is in possession Page 9 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined of the suit property since decades now. 4.2 He has further submitted that the original owner and the defendant knew very well the factual position of the suit property, but as the defendant is headstrong person and has good connection with the builder lobby had in collusion with the original owner entered into a transaction of executing sale deed just with a view to creating wrongful right in his favour so that the defendant can pressure the appellant/s and similarly situated persons for giving up their legal and lawful right from the suit property and to vacate the from peaceful possession of the suit property. 4.3 He has also submitted that the defendant/ respondent initially preferred a suit in the year 2006 and later on, he realized that simply by preferring the suit, he would not be having possession of the suit land and they have executed the sale deed in the year 2008 in collusion with the original owners just, with mala fide intention, to create wrongful title over the suit property. 4.4 He has also submitted that the appellant has not accepted the illegality committed by the respondent and therefore, preferred civil suits to protect their right to property. He has submitted that both the learned Courts Page 10 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined below have not properly appreciated the evidence on record. 4.5 The learned advocate for the appellants has suggested the following substantial questions of law for the determination of this Court :
(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned appellate Court was right in confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Court ?
(ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Courts below were right in not holding the sale deed No.5824 dated 20.05.2008 between the defendant and original owner as null and void ?
(iii) Whether in the fact and circumstances of the case, the learned Courts below were right while concluding that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property ?
(iv) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Courts below were right in rejecting the appeal and suit Page 11 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined preferred by the appellant without considering the fact that the appellant and similar situated person came into the actual possession of the suit property after following due procedure and the defendant in collusion with the original owner by creating false and fabricated documents is trying to take away the possession from the plaintiff and similarly situated persons ?
(v) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Courts below were right in not considering the fact that the plaintiff had purchased the land from the power of attorney holder of the original owner and residing on the suit property much prior to the impugned sale deed had executed between defendant and original owner ?
(vi) Whether the learned Court was right in ignoring the fact that the plaintiffs have become the owner of the property by virtue of the sale deed executed by the land owner and the plaintiffs have been possessing and Page 12 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined residing in the said suit land since years ?
(vii) Whether the learned Court was right in ignoring the fact that at the time of execution of sale deed by the executor/land owner in favour of the defendant - at that time both of them were not in possession of the suit land and under these circumstances can their sale deed be held as valid and legal ?
4.6 He has submitted that the appellants are protected by another proceeding being Special Civil Suit No.80 of 2006 qua the possession of the land in question and the said protection is in operation till date. He has submitted that these appeals may be allowed.
5.1 Learned senior advocate Mr. R.R. Marshall with learned advocates Mr. Daifraz Havewalla and Mr. Raju N. Desai for the respondent has submitted that the land in question is an agriculture land; the respondent has purchased it by way of a registered sale deed No.5824 dated 20.05.2008, which is challenged by some of the plot holders by way of suits; out of them, some parties have settled the dispute and some are dismissed by the learned trial Court on merit; Page 13 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined appeal/s was preferred; it was rejected by the learned appellate Court. Therefore, the title of the land in question is with the respondent by way of a registered sale deed. 5.2 He has submitted that the appellant/s is claiming his right over the property on the basis of the agreement to sell, which was allegedly executed by the so-called power of attorney holder, which is proved as forged one and bogus. He, therefore, submitted that since the so-called power is proved forged one and bogus, there is no sanctity of the agreement to sell executed on the said power. He has also submitted that the respondent has right and title by way of a registered sale deed, whereas the appellant / plaintiff claims right and title by way of an agreement to sell. He has submitted that the respondent has better and legal title over the land in question then the plaintiff / appellant. 5.3 He has also submitted that the land in question is an agriculture land. The appellant has purchased the part of the land in question and has allegedly become the member of a Proposed Society. He has submitted that the land in question was never converted from agriculture land into non- agriculture land. He has submitted that when the land still remains as agriculture land, how the appellants purchase the piece of agriculture land under the guise of Proposed Society. Page 14 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined 5.4 He has also submitted that so-called power of attorney holder in his deposition stated that there is no power by any one in favour of him. He further stated that he has not received any power from anyone qua the land in question. He has submitted that since the so-called power is denied, the question of the validity of an agreement to sell does not arise at all. He has submitted that even the Notary, before whom the alleged power was notarized, has denied his signature in the so-called agreement to sell, which is a notarized one.
5.5 In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the following decision :
(i) AIR 2012 SC 1727 - Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes versus Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (Dead) through L.R.s.
5.6 He has submitted that these appeals are filed in the year 2022 and till today, this Court has not passed any protective order in favour of the appellant/s. He has submitted that these appeals may be dismissed. 6.1 I have considered the rival submissions made at Page 15 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined the bar. I have also considered the averments made in these appeals. I have perused the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below. 6.2 From the record, the following undisputed facts are emerged :
6.2.1 The land in question is the Survey No.2 paiki situated at Mouje : Mota Mava, District : Rajkot.
6.2.2 The original land owners are residing at Bhavnagar i.e. another District.
6.2.3 The land in question is an agriculture land.
6.2.4 There are more than two legal heirs on record of original land owners.
6.2.5 The appellants have purchased the land in question on the basis of the agreement to sell, which is notarized one.
6.2.6 The respondent has purchased the land in question on the basis of a registered sale deed.Page 16 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined 6.2.7 The Notary has denied his signature in the said so-called notarized agreement to sell before the learned trial Court.
6.2.8 The power of attorney holder has also denied the power.
6.2.9 The appellant/s has not purchased the land in question in the capacity of agriculturist. The respondent is an agriculturist.
6.2.10 The mutation entry of a registered sale deed in the revenue record in favour of the respondent holds the field.
6.2.11 The so-called Shyam Park Cooperative Housing Society Limited is a Proposed Society on the agricultural land. Till today, the land is agricultural. There are no bye- laws on record, showing the details of administrators, details of members, rules, etc. 6.2.12 The appellant/s has constructed a building on the land in question without any permission from the Rajkot Urban Development Authority (for short 'the RUDA'). Page 17 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined 6.2.13 The RUDA has regularized the construction vide order No.MOTAMAVA/433/12/4680 dated 03.09.2015 by receiving impact fees upon the application/s made by the appellant/s, wherein the RUDA has specifically noted that the land in question is not converted into non-agriculture land from agriculture land, therefore, it should be verified from the competent Authority regarding the area, measurement and entry in the land in question.
6.3.1 Before the learned trial Court, the plaintiff/s - present appellant/s has raised various contentions, which are rebutted by the defendant - present respondent by filing his written statement at Exh.8. Against it, the plaintiff/s has also filed his written statement at Exh.9 and denied the rebuttal of the defendant. The plaintiff/s, in support of his case, has produced various evidence - documentary as well as oral at Exh.16, 20, 21 to 24, 31 to 42. After considering the evidence, the learned trial Court has framed the issues at Exh.14 for its determination and answered accordingly, which are as under :
(i) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the owner of the suit property ? (In negative)
(ii) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in actual and continuous possession of the suit Page 18 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined property from long time? (In affirmative)
(iii) Whether the plaintiff proves that the registered sale deed No.5824 dated 20.05.2008 is ab-initio null and void and not binding to the plaintiff ? (In negative)
(iv) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is trying to dispossesses him from the suit property without adopting due process of law ? (In negative)
(v) Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff is a tress-passer ? (In negative)
(vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for ? (In negative)
(vii) What order and decree ? (As per final order) 6.3.2 After considering the facts and the evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has given detailed reasons and dismissed the suit/s. The learned trial Court has recorded the examination-in-chief of the plaintiff at Exh.16, whereby it is stated that Haribhai Vashrambhai Patel (so-
called power of attorney holder) had sold the land in question to him by way of agreement to sell; and that he has given a file of the property; and that at the time of purchasing the land in question, the Society was Proposed Society; and that he has constructed over the land but he Page 19 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined has not taken any construction permission from any of the authorities. The learned trial Court, after examining the entire evidence, has observed, qua the contentions of the plaintiff, that the plaintiff has purchased the land in question by way of an agreement to sell, it is agricultural land as per revenue record, the Society was a Proposed Society, it was sold in the year 2008 by the original land owners to the defendant by way of a registered sale deed, the so-called power was given by only two owners whereas there are more than two land owners on record, the notary who has executed the power of attorney has confirmed that the power is bogus and the signature is not his signature, even the Government Authority i.e. Deputy Mamlatdar, Rajkot and Talati-cum-Mantri have also stated in their depositions that such type of transactions is not legal one. 6.3.3 The learned trial Court has further observed that the plaintiff has possession of the suit property, but as per the Transfer of Properties Act, the plaintiff has not produced any documentary evidence on record, establishing the ownership of the plaintiff over the land in question. 6.3.4 Further, the learned trial Court has observed while examining the deposition of power of attorney holder viz., Haribhai Vashrambhai Patel at Exh.42, wherein he has Page 20 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined specifically stated that he does not know the original owners
- Khengarji Jadeja and Arvindsinh Jadeja. He has also clearly stated that the power of attorney is forged and created by someone else. He does not about any facts of the case and even about the disputed property. 6.3.5 The learned trial Court has also observed that the above facts are supported by Shri B.B. Gandhi, so-called Notary by his deposition at Exh.31, wherein he has stated that in power of attorney and the affidavit, his signatures are not same. Therefore, he has stated that the power of attorney was bogus and forged and he has not notarized the same.
6.4.1 The learned appellate Court below has, after evaluating the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal/s and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. The learned appellate Court below has framed the points for its determination and decided it accordingly, after considering the entire evidence on record as well as after considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties. 6.4.2 The learned appellate Court below has observed that the plaintiff has purchased the property in the year Page 21 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined 2000 from Bhaveshbhai Hirabhai Korat; and that said Bhaveshbhai Hirabhai Korat has purchased the land in question from Prafulbhai Bakulbhai Akbari, he does not know the original land owners, he has not verified the revenue records, he even does not know that whether the land in question is agriculture or non-agriculture; he even does not know that lay-out plan of plotting is approved by the authority or not. The plaintiff has produced on record before the learned trial Court an unregistered agreement to sell. Further, the learned appellate Court below has observed that no share certificate has been produced on record showing the allotment of the land in question to the plaintiff/s by said so- called sellers. The learned appellant Court below has observed that the plaintiff/s has not produced any documentary evidence of his title, like share certificate and possession certificate issued by the Shyam Park Cooperative Housing Society Limited (Proposed), which proves the ownership of the him over the land in question. 6.4.3 The learned appellate Court below has further observed that it is a matter of record that there are more than two joint owners of the land in question. 6.4.4 The learned appellate Court has also observed that since the notary himself has denied the execution of any Page 22 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined documents, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the validity of documentary evidences on which he relied on by producing original documents, which the plaintiff has failed to prove by producing the same before the learned trial Court. It is further observed that the claim of the plaintiff is not seems to be true and bona fide.
6.4.5 Further, the learned appellate Court below has observed that the plaintiff has failed to produce any legal document to establish his title and therefore, it is proved that the possession of the plaintiff qua the land in question is not legal one. Further, the plaintiff has failed to prove that the original land owners have executed any power of attorney or authority letter.
6.4.6 The learned appellate Court has also observed that the plaintiff gets possession of the land in question in the year 2005. Soon after came to know about this fact, the original land owners filed a suit for vacating the land in question before the learned trial Court in the year 2006. Therefore, it cannot be said that the original land owners forced the plaintiff to vacate the land in question. The learned appellate Court below has specifically observed that the original land owners have taken legal recourse in time and pursuing the legal remedies. The learned appellate Court Page 23 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined below has rejected the plea of the plaintiff with regard to dispossessing the plaintiff forcibly by the defendant. 6.4.7 The learned appellate Court below has also thrown light on the aspect of adverse possession and observed that the plaintiff is not claiming adverse possession but claiming title over the land in question.
7.1 It is a matter of fact that the original land owners are residing in Bhavnagar and the land in question is situated in Rajkot District. Soon after came to know about the fact that the plaintiff/s have encroached upon the open agricultural land, the original land owners have filed a suit being Special Civil Suit No.80 of 2006 for vacating possession of the land in question before the learned trial Court, wherein status-quo qua the possession of the land in question is ordered by the learned trial Court, which is continue till date and that suit is pending for adjudication. 7.2 It is a matter of record that the original land owners have executed a registered sale deed in favour of the respondent on 20.05.2008. Till that date, the land in question was in the name of the original land owners. The plaintiff/s has no title at any time. The entry of sale deed is mutated in the revenue record after following due procedure. It is not Page 24 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined challenged by any one till date, therefore, it has attained finality.
7.3 It is noted that the original land owners have sold the land in question during the pendency of Regular Civil Suit No.80 of 2006. After executing a registered sale deed, the purchaser has entered into the shoes of the original land owners and requested the learned trial Court for substitution as plaintiff. The purchaser is therefore is a plaintiff in that suit, wherein the present appellant/s is the defendant/s. 7.4 Further, it transpires from the deposition of the so-called power of attorney holder - Haribhai Vashrambhai Patel, he does not support the case of the plaintiff/s, on whose basis the agreement to sell has been executed in favour of the plaintiff/s. Therefore, this Court finds that when the power itself proves bogus and forged one, what is the sanctity of agreement to sell executed on that bogus and forged power.
7.5 Further, as per deposition of the plaintiff, he has taken possession of the land in question in the year 2005 by way of an agreement to sell. The original land owners have filed a suit for vacating the land in question in the year 2006. Therefore, the original land owners have immediately Page 25 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined availed the legal recourse for taking back the possession of the land in question. It is the plaintiff who has not adopted legal recourse till the year 2012 i.e. year of institution of the suit. The plaintiff is aware that the Society is a Proposed Society, he has no share certificate, he has no possession certificate, as averred, he has not verified the revenue records, he has not verified as to whether the land in question is agricultural land or non-agricultural land, etc. Such statement of the plaintiff cannot be believable at all in view of the fact that the purchaser has entered into the shoes of the original land owners after executing a registered sale deed in the year 2008 and substituted as plaintiff of Special Civil Suit No.80 of 2006 where the plaintiff/s is the defendant. The said suit was filed by the original land owners against the plaintiff/s for vacating the land in question. Therefore, the plaintiff has waited till the year 2012 i.e. the year of institution of the suit for cancellation of said registered sale deed and for declaration and permanent injunction, on the basis of the so-called possession from the year 2005.
7.6 Under the circumstances, this Court finds that no prudent man can purchase any property without verifying the history of the property. In the present case, let us assume for the sake of argument that the plaintiff has not verified Page 26 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined the fact as to whether the land in question is agricultural land or non-agricultural land or not, and that as to whether the plotting scheme is sanctioned by any authority or not, and that as to whether the Proposed Society is sanctioned or not, etc., then also, when the purchaser has substituted as plaintiff in the suit in the year 2008, the plaintiff has not adopted any legal recourse till the year 2012 i.e. the year of institution of the suit. He has not bothered about all these things till the years 2008 to 2012. Even he has neither taken any civil and/or criminal action against the original land owners nor against the executor/s of the power of attorney nor against the power of attorney holder nor against whom he has purchased the land in question i.e. Bhaveshbhai Hirabhai Korat nor against the so-called erstwhile seller viz., Prafulbhai Bakulbhai Akbari till date. 7.7 At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes (supra), more particularly paras : 61 to 82. Thereof, which read as under :
"61. In civil cases, pleadings are extremely important for ascertaining the title and possession of the property in question.Page 27 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined
62. Possession is an incidence of ownership and can be transferred by the owner of an immovable property to another such as in a mortgage or lease. A licensee holds possession on behalf of the owner.
63. Possession is important when there are no title documents and other relevant records before the Court, but, once the documents and records of title come before the Court, it is the title which has to be looked at first and due weightage be given to it. Possession cannot be considered in vacuum.
64. There is a presumption that possession of a person, other than the owner, if at all it is to be called possession, is permissive on behalf of the title-holder. Further, possession of the past is one thing, and the right to remain or continue in future is another thing. It is the latter which is usually more in controversy than the former, and it is the latter which has seen much abuse and misuse before the Courts.Page 28 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined
65. A suit can be filed by the title holder for recovery of possession or it can be one for ejectment of an ex-lessee or for mandatory injunction requiring a person to remove himself or it can be a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act to recover possession.
66. A title suit for possession has two parts - first, adjudication of title, and second, adjudication of possession. If the title dispute is removed and the title is established in one or the other, then, in effect, it becomes a suit for ejectment where the defendant must plead and prove why he must not be ejected.
67. In an action for recovery of possession of immovable property, or for protecting possession thereof, upon the legal title to the property being established, the possession or occupation of the property by a person other than the holder of the legal title will be presumed to have been under and in subordination to the legal title, and it will be for the person resisting a claim for recovery of possession or claiming a right to Page 29 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined continue in possession, to establish that he has such a right. To put it differently, wherever pleadings and documents establish title to a particular property and possession is in question, it will be for the person in possession to give sufficiently detailed pleadings, particulars and documents to support his claim in order to continue in possession.
68. In order to do justice, it is necessary to direct the parties to give all details of pleadings with particulars. Once the title is prima facie established, it is for the person who is resisting the title holder's claim to possession to plead with sufficient particularity on the basis of his claim to remain in possession and place before the Court all such documents as in the ordinary course of human affairs are expected to be there. Only if the pleadings are sufficient, would an issue be struck and the matter sent to trial, where the onus will be on him to prove the averred facts and documents.
69. The person averring a right to continue in possession shall, as far as Page 30 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined possible, give a detailed particularized specific pleading along with documents to support his claim and details of subsequent conduct which establish his possession.
70. It would be imperative that one who claims possession must give all such details as enumerated hereunder. They are only illustrative and not exhaustive.
(a) who is or are the owner or owners of the property;
(b) title of the property;
(c) who is in possession of the title documents
(d) identity of the claimant or claimants to possession;
(e) the date of entry into possession;
(f) how he came into possession - whether he purchased the property or inherited or got the same in gift or by any other method;
(g) in case he purchased the property, what is the consideration; if he has taken it on rent, how much is the rent, license fee or lease amount;
(h) If taken on rent, license fee or lease -
then insist on rent deed, license deed or Page 31 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined lease deed;
(i) who are the persons in possession/occupation or otherwise living with him, in what capacity; as family members, friends or servants etc.;
(j) subsequent conduct, i.e., any event which might have extinguished his entitlement to possession or caused shift therein; and
(k) basis of his claim that not to deliver possession but continue in possession.
71. Apart from these pleadings, the Court must insist on documentary proof in support of the pleadings. All those documents would be relevant which come into existence after the transfer of title or possession or the encumbrance as is claimed. While dealing with the civil suits, at the threshold, the Court must carefully and critically examine pleadings and documents.
72. The Court will examine the pleadings for specificity as also the supporting material for sufficiency and then pass appropriate orders.
73. Discovery and production of documents Page 32 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined and answers to interrogatories, together with an approach of considering what in ordinary course of human affairs is more likely to have been the probability, will prevent many a false claims or defences from sailing beyond the stage for issues.
74. If the pleadings do not give sufficient details, they will not raise an issue, and the Court can reject the claim or pass a decree on admission. On vague pleadings, no issue arises. Only when he so establishes, does the question of framing an issue arise. Framing of issues is an extremely important stage in a civil trial. Judges are expected to carefully examine the pleadings and documents before framing of issues in a given case.
75. In pleadings, whenever a person claims right to continue in possession of another property, it becomes necessary for him to plead with specificity about who was the owner, on what date did he enter into possession, in what capacity and in what manner did he conduct his relationship with the owner over the years till the date of suit. He must also give details on what Page 33 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined basis he is claiming a right to continue in possession. Until the pleadings raise a sufficient case, they will not constitute sufficient claim of defence.
76. Dr. Arun Mohan in his classic treatise on "Justice, Courts and Delays" has dealt with these fundamental principles of law exhaustively.
77. The Court must ensure that pleadings of a case must contain sufficient particulars. Insistence on details reduces the ability to put forward a non-existent or false claim or defence. In dealing with a civil case, pleadings, title documents and relevant records play a vital role and that would ordinarily decide the fate of the case. Suit for Mandatory Injunction
78. It is a settled principle of law that no one can take law in his own hands.
Even a trespasser in settled possession cannot be dispossessed without recourse of law. It must be the endeavour of the Court that if a suit for mandatory injunction is filed, then it is its bounden duty and Page 34 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined obligation to critically examine the pleadings and documents and pass an order of injunction while taking pragmatic realities including prevalent market rent of similar premises in similar localities in consideration. The Court's primary concern has to be to do substantial justice. Even if the Court in an extraordinary case decides to grant ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff who does not have a clear title, then at least the plaintiff be directed to give an undertaking that in case the suit is ultimately dismissed, then he would be required to pay market rent of the property from the date when an ad interim injunction was obtained by him. It is the duty and the obligation of the Court to at least dispose off application of grant of injunction as expeditiously as possible. It is the demand of equity and justice.
Due process of Law
79. Due process of law means nobody ought to be condemned unheard. The due process of law means a person in settled possession will not be dispossessed except by due process of law. Due process means an Page 35 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined opportunity for the defendant to file pleadings including written statement and documents before the Court of law. It does not mean the whole trial. Due process of law is satisfied the moment rights of the parties are adjudicated by a competent Court.
80. The High Court of Delhi in a case Thomas Cook (India) Limited v. Hotel Imperial, 2006 (88) DRJ 545 : (AIR 2007 (NOC) 169) held as under:
"28. The expressions 'due process of law', 'due course of law' and 'recourse to law' have been interchangeably used in the decisions referred to above which say that the settled possession of even a person in unlawful possession cannot be disturbed 'forcibly' by the true owner taking law in his own hands. All these expressions, however, mean the same thing - ejectment from settled possession can only be had by recourse to a court of law. Clearly, Page 36 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined 'due process of law' or 'due course of law', here, simply mean that a person in settled possession cannot be ejected without a court of law having adjudicated upon his rights qua the true owner.
Now, this 'due process' or 'due course' condition is satisfied the moment the rights of the parties are adjudicated upon by a court of competent jurisdiction. It does not matter who brought the action to court. It could be the owner in an action for enforcement of his right to eject the person in unlawful possession. It could be the person who is sought to be ejected, in an action preventing the owner from ejecting him. Whether the action is for enforcement of a right (recovery of possession) or protection of a right (injunction against dispossession), is not of much consequence. What is important is that in either event, it is an action before the court and the court adjudicates upon it. If that is done Page 37 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined then, the 'bare minimum' requirement of 'due process' or 'due course' of law would stand satisfied as recourse to law would have been taken. In this context, when a party approaches a court seeking a protective remedy such as an injunction and it fails in setting up a good case, can it then say that the other party must now institute an action in a court of law for enforcing his rights i.e., for taking back something from the first party who holds it unlawfully, and, till such time, the court hearing the injunction action must grant an injunction anyway? I would think not. In any event, the 'recourse to law' stipulation stands satisfied when a judicial determination is made with regard to the first party's protective action. Thus, in the present case, the plaintiff's failure to make out a case for an injunction does not mean that its consequent cessation of user of the said two rooms would have been Page 38 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined brought about without recourse to law."
We approve the findings of the High Court of Delhi on this issue in the aforesaid case.
False claims and false defences
81. False claims and defences are really serious problems with real estate litigation, pre-dominantly because of ever escalating prices of the real estate. Litigation pertaining to valuable real estate properties is dragged on by unscrupulous litigants in the hope that the other party will tire out and ultimately would settle with them by paying a huge amount. This happens because of the enormous delay in adjudication of cases in our Courts. If pragmatic approach is adopted, then this problem can be minimized to a large extent.
82. This Court in a recent judgment in Ramrameshwari Devi and others (AIR 2011 SC (Civ) 1776 : 2011 AIR SCW 4000) (supra) aptly observed at page 266 that unless wrongdoers are denied profit from Page 39 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to prevent it. In order to curb uncalled for and frivolous litigation, the Courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive for uncalled for litigation. It is a matter of common experience that Court's otherwise scarce time is consumed or more appropriately, wasted in a large number of uncalled for cases. In this very judgment, the Court provided that this problem can be solved or at least be minimized if exemplary cost is imposed for instituting frivolous litigation. The Court observed at pages 267- 268 that imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and/or ordering prosecution in appropriate cases would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would also control unnecessary adjournments by the parties. In appropriate cases, the Courts may consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings."
8. At this stage, it would be necessary to refer to the Page 40 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined order passed by the Rajkot Urban Development Authority Section 6(3) of the Gujarat Regularisation of Unauthorised Development Act, 2011 for regularization of the construction put up by the plaintiff/s. Upon application made by the plaintiff/s, the RUDA has approved the construction made on the various plots on the agricultural land, that too when the RUDA is aware that the land is agricultural land. The RUDA, while granting an order of regularization, has specifically put a note that it is agricultural land. Therefore, this Court has posed a question to itself as to whether the RUDA has powers to regularize the construction put up in the plots on agricultural land under Section 6(3) of the Gujarat Regularisation of Unauthorised Development Act, 2011 ? The conduct of the RUDA smacks a lot. However, since this is not the question before this Court in this group of appeals, this Court restrained itself from observing any further in this regard.
9. In view of above facts noted in paragraph - 2 above as well as the undisputed facts noted above and the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, the following questions are required to be addressed in appropriate proceedings, as present second appeal is having limited scope :
Page 41 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined
(i) Whether anyone has availed any remedy under the law - civil and/or criminal, against the so-called power of attorney holder - Harilal Vashrambhai Patel or against the original land owners or against the so-called seller/s viz., Bhaveshbhai Hirabhai Korat or Prafulbhai Bakulbhai Akbari till date ?
(ii) Whether the appellant/s can construct the building on an agricultural land without any permission from the concerned Authority ?
(iii) Can Rajkot Urban Development Authority grant permission to an illegal construction, which is made on agricultural land, under the guise of Proposed Society under Section 6(3) of the Gujarat Regularisation of Unauthorised Development Act, 2011 ?
These questions are remained still unanswered in the present proceedings.
10.1 At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which reads as under:
Page 42 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined "[100. Second appeal.--(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. (2) An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed ex parte. (3) In an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal.
(4) Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question. (5) The appeal shall be heard on the question so formulated and the respondent shall, at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such question:
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial Page 43 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined question of law, not formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question."
10.2 It is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gurbachan Singh (Dead) Through Lrs Gurcharan Singh (Dead) Through Lrs and Others., reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 875, more particularly paragraphs 7, 14 and 15 thereof, which read as under :
"7. The parameters of an appeal under Section 100, CPC passing muster are well established. The section itself dictates that such an appeal shall only be maintainable when the case involves a substantial question of law or that the appellate decree has been passed ex parte. the latter, obviously is not the case. This court has, in a multitude of decisions, expounded on what may be termed as a substantial question of law to satisfy the requirements of section
100. In Nazir Mohamed v. J. Kamala (2-
Judge Bench), it was observed:--
"27. In HeroVinoth v. Seshammal Page 44 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined [HeroVinoth v. Seshammal, (2006) 5 SCC 545], this Court referred to and relied upon Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons Ltd. [Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314] and other judgments and summarised the tests to find out whether a given set of questions of law were mere questions of law or substantial questions of law. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment of this Court in Hero Vinoth [Hero Vinoth v. Seshammal, (2006) 5 SCC 545] are set out hereinbelow : (SCC p. 554, para 21) "21. The phrase "substantial question of law", as occurring in the amended Section 100 CPC is not defined in the Code. The word substantial, as qualifying "question of law", means-- of having substance, essential, real, of sound worth, important or considerable. It is to be understood as something in contradistinction with--technical, of Page 45 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined no substance or consequence, or academic merely. However, it is clear that the legislature has chosen not to qualify the scope of "substantial question of law" by suffixing the words "of general importance" as has been done in many other provisions such as Section 109 of the Code or Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution. The substantial question of law on which a second appeal shall be heard need not necessarily be a substantial question of law of general importance. In Guran Ditta v. Ram Ditta [Guran Ditta v. Ram Ditta, 1928 SCC OnLine PC 31 : (1927-28) 55 IA 235 : AIR 1928 PC 172] the phrase "substantial question of law"
as it was employed in the last clause of the then existing Section 100 CPC (since omitted by the Amendment Act, 1973) came up for consideration and their Lordships held that it did not mean a substantial question of general importance but a substantial Page 46 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined question of law which was involved in the case. In Chunilal case [Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v.
Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314] the Constitution Bench expressed agreement with the following view taken by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Rimmalapudi Subba Rao v. Noony Veeraju [Rimmalapudi Subba Rao v. Noony Veeraju, 1951 SCC OnLine Mad 100 : AIR 1951 Mad 969] :
(Chunilal case [Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314], AIR p. 1318, para 5) '5. ... when a question of law is fairly arguable, where there is room for difference of opinion on it or where the Court thought it necessary to deal with that question at some length and discuss alternative views, then the question would be a substantial question of law. On the other hand if the question was practically covered by Page 47 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined the decision of the highest court or if the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and the only question was of applying those principles to the particular facts of the case it would not be a substantial question of law.'
28. To be "substantial", a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by the law of the land or any binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case and/or the rights of the parties before it, if answered either way." (Emphasis supplied)
14. As already noted above, another ground of objection taken by the Appellant is the fact of the impugned judgment entering into a reappreciation of evidence. While it is true that ordinarily, in second appeal, the court must not disturb facts established by the lower court or the first appellate court.
However, it is also equally well recognised Page 48 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined that this rule is not an absolute one or in other words, it is not a rule set in stone. In Nazir Mohamed (supra) this Court has recognised three conditions in which a court in such jurisdiction, may disturb findings of fact. They are:--
"(i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or
(iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. A decision based on no evidence, does not refer only to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding."
15. A Bench of three learned Judges, recently in Balasubramanian v. M. Arockiasamy (Dead) Through LRs. , had referred to, with approval judgment rendered in Ramathal v. Maruthathal (two-Judge Bench) wherein it was observed that the Page 49 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined restraint in interfering with questions of fact under the jurisdiction of second appeal, is not an absolute rule. Where the court is of the view that the conclusions drawn by the court below do not have a basis in the evidence led or it is of the view that the appreciation of evidence "suffers from material irregularity" the court will be justified in interfering with such findings."
11. Thus, from the above facts and circumstances of the case and considering the impugned judgments and observations made by both the learned Courts below, this Court is of the opinion that both the learned Courts below have framed the issues/points and decided it accordingly by giving cogent and convincing reasons, as recorded in the impugned judgments. The impugned judgments of both the learned Courts below are just, proper, in accordance with law and in consonance with the material available on the record as well as after properly appreciating the documentary as well as oral evidence produced on the record. This Court finds that there is no perversity or illegality in the findings given by both the Courts below. The impugned judgments and decrees are just, proper and legal and no interference is required to be made by this Court. This Court further finds that no any question, much less any substantial question of Page 50 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/583/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2024 undefined law arises in this group of appeals for consideration of this Court. These second appeals therefore need to be dismissed and are dismissed accordingly, at the admission stage.
12. In view of above, all the respective interim applications would not survive and are disposed of accordingly.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) M.H. DAVE Page 51 of 51 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 21:44:29 IST 2024