Case Note & Summary
The present appeal arises from a suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiffs (respondent Nos. 1 and 2) on 31 July 1971, claiming ownership and possession of Khasra No. 238 measuring 4 Bighas 3 Biswas in Village Basai Darapur, Delhi. The plaintiffs had earlier obtained a decree of declaration on 7 October 1960, which was unsuccessfully challenged by the Union of India. The suit was filed against defendant No. 1 (The Refugees' Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.), its President, Secretary, and defendant No. 4 (Kirpa Ram, predecessor of the appellants). Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 raised a preliminary objection that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred under Section 85 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. Defendant No. 4 (appellant) contended that the land in dispute was not Khasra No. 238 but Khasra No. 79 in Village Shakarpur, and that he was in possession. The trial court framed issues, including whether the civil court had jurisdiction (Issue No. 2) and whether the land formed part of Khasra No. 238 or Khasra No. 79 (Issues 4 and 5). The trial court decreed the suit, holding that the land fell in Khasra No. 238, Village Basai Darapur, and that the plaintiffs were owners and in possession. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by defendant No. 4, reappreciating evidence and affirming the trial court's findings. In the second appeal, the appellant raised three substantial questions of law: (1) whether the appellate court could dispose of the appeal without deciding the preliminary issue of jurisdiction; (2) whether the appellate court could dispose of the appeal without passing an order on the application for additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC; and (3) whether the appellate court erred in not considering Section 28 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954, which bars civil court jurisdiction in boundary disputes. The High Court dismissed the second appeal without framing substantial questions of law. The Supreme Court held that the questions raised did not constitute substantial questions of law. The issue of jurisdiction was a question of law that could be decided by the First Appellate Court while hearing the appeal, and no prejudice was caused to the appellant. The application for additional evidence was rightly rejected because the documents pertained to Village Basai Darapur, over which the appellant had no claim, and the parties had already adduced evidence on the controversy. Regarding the bar of jurisdiction under the Delhi Land Revenue Act, the Court noted that Section 83 of that Act does not expressly bar civil court jurisdiction in boundary disputes, and the suit was essentially about title and possession, not a boundary dispute. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the courts below.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - High Court dismissed second appeal without framing substantial questions of law - Held that the questions raised by the appellant did not arise for consideration as the issue of jurisdiction was a question of law that could be decided by the First Appellate Court while hearing the appeal, and the application for additional evidence was rightly rejected as the documents sought to be produced were not relevant to the appellant's plea (Paras 14-18). B) Civil Procedure Code - Additional Evidence - Order XLI Rule 27 CPC - Appellant sought to produce revenue records of Village Basai Darapur - Held that the appellant had no claim over any part of Village Basai Darapur and the documents were not relevant to the plea that the land in dispute was Khasra No. 79 of Village Shakarpur - The parties had understood the controversy and adduced evidence, so additional evidence was not permissible (Paras 17-18). C) Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Boundary Dispute - Sections 28 and 83 - Appellant argued that the suit involved a boundary dispute between two revenue estates barring civil court jurisdiction - Held that Section 83 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act does not expressly bar the jurisdiction of the civil court in respect of boundary disputes, and the dispute was essentially about title and possession, not a boundary dispute (Paras 18-19). D) Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 - Bar of Jurisdiction - Section 85 - Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 raised the plea of bar of jurisdiction under Section 85 - Held that the plea was not raised by the appellant, and the suit was a simpliciter suit for injunction, which the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain (Paras 3, 6, 16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the second appeal without framing substantial questions of law; whether the First Appellate Court ought to have decided the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue; whether the application for additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC was wrongly rejected; whether the civil court's jurisdiction is barred under Section 28 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 in a boundary dispute.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that no substantial questions of law arose for consideration. The High Court's dismissal of the second appeal was upheld. The concurrent findings of the three courts were affirmed.
Law Points
- Civil Procedure Code
- 1908
- Section 100
- Order XLI Rule 27
- Delhi Land Revenue Act
- 1954
- Section 28
- Section 83
- Delhi Land Reforms Act
- Section 85
- Permanent Injunction
- Jurisdiction of Civil Court
- Additional Evidence
- Substantial Question of Law
