Case Note & Summary
The present appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which allowed a second appeal filed by the original plaintiff, Dungaji, and decreed his suit. The suit sought a declaration that the marriage between Dungaji and his wife Kaveribai had been dissolved by customary divorce prior to the coming into force of the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960, and that the land inherited by Kaveribai from her mother could not be treated as family property of Dungaji for determination of surplus land. The Competent Authority under the Act had, by order dated 18.05.1976, treated Kaveribai as a member of Dungaji's family and included her inherited land in the family holding, declaring 57.32 acres as surplus. Dungaji challenged this order by filing a civil suit. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that Dungaji failed to prove customary divorce. The First Appellate Court confirmed this decision. In second appeal, the High Court framed three substantial questions of law: whether the concurrent findings on customary divorce were perverse; whether the inherited property could be part of family property; and whether the Competent Authority failed to follow mandatory procedure. The High Court answered all questions in favor of Dungaji, allowed the appeal, and decreed the suit. The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with concurrent findings of fact without demonstrating perversity. The Court also held that the civil suit was barred by Section 46 of the Act, which ousts the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters covered by the Act. The Court further noted that Dungaji failed to prove the existence of any custom of divorce in his community, and the mere admission by Kaveribai was insufficient. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the judgments of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissing the suit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - Interference with concurrent findings of fact - High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence - In the present case, both courts below held that plaintiff failed to prove customary divorce - High Court erred in reversing those findings without demonstrating perversity (Paras 11-14). B) Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 - Section 46 - Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court - Suit challenging order of Competent Authority under the Act is not maintainable - The Act provides a complete machinery for adjudication of disputes - Civil Court's jurisdiction is expressly barred - The suit filed by the plaintiff was void ab initio (Paras 15-18). C) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Customary Divorce - Proof of custom - A party claiming customary divorce must prove the existence of such custom in the community and that the divorce was effected in accordance with that custom - Mere oral statements without corroboration and without proving the custom are insufficient - In this case, plaintiff failed to lead any evidence to prove the custom of divorce in his community (Paras 19-21).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the second appeal and decreeing the suit declaring customary divorce and setting aside the order of the Competent Authority, despite the bar of jurisdiction under Section 46 of the Act and concurrent findings of fact against the plaintiff.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 29.10.2010, and restored the judgments and decrees of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissing the suit. The Court held that the civil suit was not maintainable due to the bar under Section 46 of the Act, and that the High Court erred in interfering with concurrent findings of fact.
Law Points
- Bar of jurisdiction of civil court under Section 46 of Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act
- 1960
- Customary divorce must be strictly proved
- Concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in second appeal under Section 100 CPC unless perverse
