ANJALAI vs. THIRUMURUGAN
2019 Latest Caselaw 1232 SC

Citation : 2019 Latest Caselaw 1232 SC
Judgement Date : 09 Dec 2019

Headnote :
The Civil Procedure Code of 1908, Section 100, and the Specific Relief Act of 1963, Sections 6 and 34, pertain to a suit for possession and declaration. It is important to note that not every legal question qualifies as a substantial question of law, and not every error made by lower courts can be classified as a legal issue. The High Court determined that the defendants were not involved in either the partition list or the original suit, leading to the erroneous conclusion that the judgment would hold evidentiary weight against them. Additionally, the High Court made another error by asserting that the field map, \"A\" register extract, and Adangal submitted as additional documents were adequate to establish the plaintiff\'s title, which actually arose after the suit was filed. The High Court was also misled by the admission of the first defendant, who testified as DW-1, stating that his claim was limited to 0.09 cents and that the defendants had no objection to a decree being granted for the remaining land. The High Court overlooked the fact that an admission of part of the plaintiff\'s claim cannot justify a decree for the entirety of the claim. Consequently, the contested judgment has been overturned, and the case is remanded to the High Court for reconsideration.

Before :- N.V. Ramana, L. Nageswara Rao and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.

Civil Appeal No.9270 of 2019 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.7819 of 2016). D/d. 9.12.2019.

Anjalai & Anr. - Appellants

Versus

Thirumurugan & Ors. - Respondents

For the Appellants :- R.Anand Padmanabhan, Romil Pathak, Arvind C., Shashi Bhushan Kumar, Advocates.

For the Respondents :- V. Prabhakar, Ms. Jyoti Parasher, N.J. Ramchandar, S. Rajappa, Advocates.

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. The contesting respondents namely respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein filed a civil suit in O.S. No.575 of 2000 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Cuddalore for a declaration of title and for recovery of possession. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court by a Judgment dated 9.03.2005. The appeal filed by them in A.S. No.43 of 2005 was also dismissed by the 1St Additional Sub Judge, Cuddalore by a Judgment and decree dated 27.07.2005.

3. However, the second appeal filed by the contesting respondents (plaintiffs) in S.A No.1156 of 2006 was allowed by the High Court, after taking into account three additional documents filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure . It is against the reversing Judgment of the High Court that the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit have come up with the above appeal.

3. Without much ado, it can be pointed out that the High Court framed the following as the substantial questions of law arising for consideration in terms of Section 100 of the Code:

1. Whether the lower courts are right in dismissing the suit inspite of availability of title deed?
2. Whether the lower courts are right in brushing aside Ex.A5 to A8?
3. Whether the lower courts are not wrong in falling to see the evidentiary value of Exs.A5 to A8?
4. Whether the lower Courts are right in overlooking the admissions made by Dws?
We are surprised that the above questions are considered by the High Court as substantial questions of law. It is well settled that every question of law may not be a substantial question of law and every mistake committed by the subordinate courts cannot be elevated to the level of issues of law.

4. After noting down the substantial questions of law on which the second appeal was admitted, the High Court went on to consider the facts and the evidence on record and allowed the second appeal without answering any of the substantial questions of law. The High Court thus committed a patent error of law in allowing a second appeal without even answering any of the substantial questions of law.

5. Primarily, the High Court proceeded to decree the suit on the basis of a partition list dated 6.02.1975 marked as Exhibit A-5 and a judgment and decree passed in O.S No.2442 of 1981 marked as Exhibits A-6 and A-7. Though the High Court found that the defendants were not parties either to the partition list or to the suit O.S. No.2442 of 1981, the High Court concluded as though the Judgment will be of evidentiary value against them. The High Court committed yet another mistake in holding that the field map, "A" register extract and Adangal filed as additional documents are sufficient to prove the plaintiff's title. These documents had actually come into existence after the filing of the suit.

6. In addition, the High Court was carried away (i) by the admission made by the first defendant examined as DW-1 that his claim was limited only to the extent of 0.09 cents and (ii) that the defendants had no objection to the grant of a decree in respect of the remaining portion of the land. The High Court failed to realize that the admission of a part of the claim of the plaintiff cannot be used to grant a decree in respect of the whole of the claim.

7. In view of the above, particularly in the light of the fact that the High Court did not frame proper substantial questions of law and did not even answer anyone of the questions framed, we are of the view that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the matter remanded back to the High Court for a fresh disposal. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the matter remanded back to the High Court for a fresh disposal. If necessary the parties may seek reframing of the substantial questions of law and the High Court may thereafter dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. No costs.