The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Vijay Singh Verma & Ors. vs Kanwar Singh Verma consisting of Justice C. Hari Shankar reiterated the tests laid down in a plethora of cases to decide whether a certain issue is a “substantial question of law”.
Facts
Averring that he was the owner of a property situated in New Delhi (“the suit property”), the respondent instituted a suit against the appellants before the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge (“the learned ASCJ”), seeking an injunction, restraining the appellants from obstructing the respondent in keeping and maintaining a water tank at the roof of the suit property, as well as from accessing the roof of the suit property, in connection therewith.
As per the averments, the respondent was the occupant of the ground floor of the suit property, whereas the appellants (defendants in the suit) were in possession of one room on the ground floor, the entire first floor and one room on the second floor, along with roof. The respondent claimed to have purchased the suit property through Shakuntala Devi, his mother, who, it was asserted, had purchased the suit property from Mamchand Tanwar, who, in turn, had purchased the suit property from one Nathu Ram through General Power of Attorney (GPA), Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Receipt and registered Will in 1980. He had installed a water pipe in the property and had a cemented water tank installed on the roof over the staircase of the first floor, from where water was supplied to the entire suit property, but Appellant (Defendant therein) had broken the water tank, resulting in disconnection of water supply to the suit property.
Procedural History
Contesting the suit, the appellants sought stay of trial in the suit u/s 10 CPC on the ground that the subject matter in issue in the suit instituted by the respondent was directly and substantially in issue in a suit instituted prior in point of time by the appellants against the respondent. It was also sought to be contended that the suit was barred u/s 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. They also disputed the title of the respondent’s mother Shakuntala Devi. The learned Civil Judge framed various issues and held that the suit instituted by the respondent was not barred by Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, as a simplicitor suit for injunction, restraining against interference with peaceful possession of the suit property, was maintainable without proof of title. Since the respondent had not been able to make out a case of need to access the roof of the suit property, the prayer for a prohibitory injunction against restricting access of the respondent to the roof of the suit property was, therefore, rejected.
Aggrieved, the respondent appealed to the learned Additional District Judge who held that the question of title was really insubstantial to a resolution of the issue in controversy, which was “whether the appellants/plaintiffs being the occupants of a portion of the ground floor is entitled to restore the water tank on the roof/terrace of the building, which, according to the plaintiffs/appellants stood damaged/destroyed/removed by the respondent”.
Observations of the Court
The Bench, while looking into “substantial question of law” within the meaning of Section 100 CPC, relied on various judgments like Hero Vinoth (Minor) v. Seshammal relying on its earlier decision in Sir Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd v. Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd, Guran Ditta v. Ram Ditta and Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari and reiterated that:
“The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would, in our opinion, be whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by this Court or by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views… it did not mean a substantial question of general importance but a substantial question of law which was involved in the case… To be “substantial” a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if answered either way, insofar as the rights of the parties before it are concerned.”
It was noted that the issue in controversy in this case was purely factual in nature and that there were concurrent findings, by the learned Civil Judge as well as the learned ADJ, that the rights asserted by the respondent did not involve adjudication into the question of title. As to whether a mere GPA could result in transfer of title, it did not express any opinion thereon as it was submitted that the issue of title was sub judice in another pending suit.
However, it opined that the learned ADJ was right in holding that the respondent was entitled to restoration of the status quo ante, by installation of a water tank on the roof of the suit property, as well as access thereto, limited to maintenance and upkeep of the water tank.
Judgment
The Bench concluded that no substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 CPC arose in the present appeal and dismissed it in limine with no order as to costs.
Case: Vijay Singh Verma & Ors. vs Kanwar Singh Verma
Citation: RSA 107/2022, CM APPL. 40129/2022, CM APPL. 40130/2022, CM APPL. 40131/2022, CM APPL. 40132/2022 and CM APPL. 40133/2022
Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar
Decided on: 13th September 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
