Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Ram Avtar And Ors vs Rameshwar And Ors Etc on 8 April, 2016
Bench: A.K. Sikri, R.K. Agrawal
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3930-3931 OF 2016
(Arising out of SLP (C)Nos. 10544-10545 of 2016)
(Arising out of SLP CC Nos. 6064-6065 of 2016)
RAM AVTAR AND ORS. ... Appellants
VERSUS
RAMESHWAR AND ORS. ETC ... Respondents
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
Issue notice.
Mr. Arjun Dewan accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1.
Leave granted.
Since short question is involved and both the parties were ready to argue the matter, we have heard the matter finally at this stage itself.
It is not necessary to set out the factual matrix of the case in detail. Suffice is to state that both the parties are joint owners of the disputed property, viz., Khewat No. 52 Khatoni No. 59, Rect.No.11 Killa No. 22/2 (4-12), 23/1 (5-7), 24/1 (4-9) Rect. No.16 Killa No. 6/2 (0-2) Rect No.21 Killa No. 11 (7-11), 20(8-0) Khasra No. 231 (1-1) total 31 Kanal 2 marla situated within the revenue Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NIDHI AHUJA estate of village Chandanwas Tehsil & Distt. Rewari. The Date: 2016.04.29 10:57:49 IST Reason: respondents herein hold 15/16 share in the said property 1 C.A. Nos. 3930-3931/2016 whereas the appellants have 1/16 share in the said property. However, no proceedings of partition are filed by any of the parties. Without doing the same, the respondents herein filed two suits, one for permanent injunction and the other suit was for declaration of title claiming that the respondents were owners to the extent of 15/16 share in the said property. The appellants herein took preliminary objection to the maintainability of both the suits taking aid of the provisions of Section 158 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, which bars the jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain those matters which come within the jurisdiction of Revenue Officers. The suit of the respondent No. 3 was dismissed by the trial court on the aforesaid ground. However, on appeal filed by the respondents, the first appellate court reversed the order and decreed the suits in favour of the respondents herein.
Aggrieved by the judgment, the appellant herein filed regular appeal in the High Court. A perusal of the order of the High Court would show that the High Court accepted the plea of the appellants herein that the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred in law to entertain such suits. Notwithstanding the same, the High Court gave partial relief and maintained the findings of the Trial Court to the extent that the claim of the respondents herein that they are the owners in possession of a particular share of the property was uncalled for. The operative portion of the said 2 C.A. Nos. 3930-3931/2016 direction reads as under: -
“Thus, finding to this extent is set aside as returned by the fist appellate court. However, the findings that none can dispossess the owner except in due course of law and that the owners shall be at liberty to take actual possession out of suit land which are in possession of un-authorized person needs to be upheld and that the claim of the appellants that they are owners in possession of a particular share of the property is highly un-called for.” While holding so, the High Court has committed a fundamental error by proceeding on the premise that it is the appellants who had filed the suit when it was in fact filed by the respondents. The aforesaid observations of the High Court clearly demonstrate that the suit was not maintainable. However, at the same time, under the presumption that the appellants had filed the suit, the High Court made the observation that the claim of the appellants that they are the owners in possession of a particular share of the property was uncalled for. In fact, this was precisely the contention of the appellants in the suit and therefore, the aforesaid observations vindicate the stand taken by the appellants and on that basis, the appellants were entitled to full relief in the said regular second appeal.
We have gone through the provisions of Section 158 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, the relevant portion thereof reads as under: -
158. Exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters within the jurisdiction of Revenue Officers.
– Except as otherwise provided by this Act – (1)a Civil Court shall not have jurisdiction in any 3 C.A. Nos. 3930-3931/2016 matter which the State Government or a Revenue Officer is empowered by this Act to dispose of or take cognizance of the manner in which the State Government or any Revenue Officer exercises any powers vested in it or him by or under this Act; and in particular – (2) a Civil Court shall not exercise jurisdiction over any of the following matters, namely: -
xxxxx
(vi) the correction of any entry in a record-of-rights, annual record or register of mutations;
xxxxx (xvii) any claim for partition of an estate, holding or tenancy, or any question connected with, or arising out of, proceedings for partition, not being a question as to title in any of the property of which partition is sought;” It is clear from the above that the civil court does not have any jurisdiction to correct any entry in a record of rights, annual record or register of mutations and also it does not have any jurisdiction to entertain any civil suit pertaining to any relief of partition of property to which the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, applies.
We, thus, set aside that part of the order of the High Court by which the High Court stated that claim of the appellants that they are the owners in possession of a particular share in the property is uncalled for. Instead the finding should have been that the claim of the respondents herein, plantiffs in the suit, that they are the 4 C.A. Nos. 3930-3931/2016 owners in possession of a particular share of the property was uncalled for.
The present appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms. Before we part with, we make it clear that the observations of the High Court qua Gindori Devi are not interfered with as she has not challenged the order.
......................, J.
[ A.K. SIKRI ] ......................, J.
[ R.K. AGRAWAL ] New Delhi;
April 08, 2016.
5
C.A. Nos. 3930-3931/2016
(REVISED)
ITEM NO.26 COURT NO.12 SECTION IVB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)......
CC Nos. 6064-6065/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06/01/2015 in RSA No. 4522/2003 and RSA No. 3611/2008 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh) RAM AVTAR AND ORS Petitioner(s) VERSUS RAMESHWAR AND ORS ETC Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP) Date : 08/04/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL For Petitioner(s) Mr. Gagan Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Arjun Dewan, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned.
Issue notice.
Mr. Arjun Dewan accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1.
Leave granted.
The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.
(Nidhi Ahuja) (Tapan Kr. Chakraborty)
Court Master Court Master
[Signed order is placed on the file.] 6 C.A. Nos. 3930-3931/2016 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3930-3931 OF 2016 (Arising out of SLP (C)Nos. 10544-10545 of 2016) (Arising out of SLP CC Nos. 6064-6065 of 2016) RAM AVTAR AND ORS. ... Appellants VERSUS RAMESHWAR AND ORS. ETC ... Respondents O R D E R Delay condoned.
Issue notice.
Mr. Arjun Dewan accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1.
Leave granted.
Since short question is involved and both the parties were ready to argue the matter, we have heard the matter finally at this stage itself.
It is not necessary to set out the factual matrix of the case in detail. Suffice is to state that both the parties are joint owners of the disputed property, viz., Khewat No. 52 Khatoni No. 59, Rect.No.11 Killa No. 22/2 (4-12), 23/1 (5-7), 24/1 (4-9) Rect. No.16 Killa No. 6/2 (0-2) Rect No.21 Killa No. 11 (7-11), 20(8-0) Khasra No. 231 (1-1) total 31 Kanal 2 marla situated within the revenue estate of village Chandanwas Tehsil & Distt. Rewari. The respondents herein hold 15/16 share in the said property 7 C.A. Nos. 3930-3931/2016 whereas the appellants have 1/16 share in the said property. However, no proceedings of partition are filed by any of the parties. Without doing the same, the respondents herein filed two suits, one for permanent injunction and the other suit was for declaration of title claiming that the respondents were owners to the extent of 15/16 share in the said property. The appellants herein took preliminary objection to the maintainability of both the suits taking aid of the provisions of Section 158 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, which bars the jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain those matters which come within the jurisdiction of Revenue Officers. The suit of the respondent No. 3 was dismissed by the trial court on the aforesaid ground. However, on appeal filed by the respondents, the first appellate court reversed the order and decreed the suits in favour of the respondents herein.
Aggrieved by the judgment, the appellant herein filed regular appeal in the High Court. A perusal of the order of the High Court would show that the High Court accepted the plea of the appellants herein that the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred in law to entertain such suits. Notwithstanding the same, the High Court gave partial relief and maintained the findings of the Trial Court to the extent that the claim of the respondents herein that they are the owners in possession of a particular share of the property was uncalled for. The operative portion of the said 8 C.A. Nos. 3930-3931/2016 direction reads as under: -
“Thus, finding to this extent is set aside as returned by the fist appellate court. However, the findings that none can dispossess the owner except in due course of law and that the owners shall be at liberty to take actual possession out of suit land which are in possession of un-authorized person needs to be upheld and that the claim of the appellants that they are owners in possession of a particular share of the property is highly un-called for.” While holding so, the High Court has committed a fundamental error by proceeding on the premise that it is the appellants who had filed the suit when it was in fact filed by the respondents. The aforesaid observations of the High Court clearly demonstrate that the suit was not maintainable. However, at the same time, under the presumption that the appellants had filed the suit, the High Court made the observation that the claim of the appellants that they are the owners in possession of a particular share of the property was uncalled for. In fact, this was precisely the contention of the respondents in the suit and therefore, the aforesaid observations vindicate the stand taken by the respondents and on that basis, the respondents were entitled to full relief in the said regular second appeal.
We have gone through the provisions of Section 158 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, the relevant portion thereof reads as under: -
158. Exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters within the jurisdiction of Revenue Officers.
– Except as otherwise provided by this Act – (1)a Civil Court shall not have jurisdiction in any 9 C.A. Nos. 3930-3931/2016 matter which the State Government or a Revenue Officer is empowered by this Act to dispose of or take cognizance of the manner in which the State Government or any Revenue Officer exercises any powers vested in it or him by or under this Act; and in particular – (2) a Civil Court shall not exercise jurisdiction over any of the following matters, namely: -
xxxxx
(vi) the correction of any entry in a record-of-rights, annual record or register of mutations;
xxxxx (xvii) any claim for partition of an estate, holding or tenancy, or any question connected with, or arising out of, proceedings for partition, not being a question as to title in any of the property of which partition is sought;” It is clear from the above that the civil court does not have any jurisdiction to correct any entry in a record of rights, annual record or register of mutations and also it does not have any jurisdiction to entertain any civil suit pertaining to any relief of partition of property to which the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, applies.
We, thus, set aside that part of the order of the High Court by which the High Court stated that claim of the appellants that they are the owners in possession of a particular share in the property is uncalled for. Instead the finding should have been that the claim of the respondents herein, plantiffs in the suit, that they are the 10 C.A. Nos. 3930-3931/2016 owners in possession of a particular share of the property was uncalled for.
The present appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms. Before we part with, we make it clear that the observations of the High Court qua Gindori Devi are not interfered with as she has not challenged the order.
......................, J.
[ A.K. SIKRI ] ......................, J.
[ R.K. AGRAWAL ] New Delhi;
April 08, 2016.
11 C.A. Nos. 3930-3931/2016 ITEM NO.26 COURT NO.12 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)......
CC Nos. 6064-6065/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06/01/2015 in RSA No. 4522/2003 and RSA No. 3611/2008 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh) RAM AVTAR AND ORS Petitioner(s) VERSUS RAMESHWAR AND ORS ETC Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP) Date : 08/04/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL For Petitioner(s) Mr. Gagan Gupta, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Arjun Dewan, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned.
Issue notice.
Mr. Arjun Dewan accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1.
Leave granted.
The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.
(Nidhi Ahuja) (Tapan Kr. Chakraborty)
Court Master Court Master
[Signed order is placed on the file.] 12