1. Suit for declaration regarding common use of open land adjoining a house — dispute over ownership and title via sale certificates of evacuee property. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 203
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N.Kirpal : M.B.Shah : V.N.Khare
Mohd.Abdul Muqtedar (Dead)
Versus
Shaikh Fakruddin
Case No. : 8217 of 1995
Date of Decision : 1/27/00
Important Points
The High Court cannot reverse concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC unless they are perverse. Boundary descriptions in original auction documents prevail over amended certificates that do not explicitly convey title to the land in question.
Subject
Civil Law - Property Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Scope of second appeal - High Court cannot reverse concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the trial court and the lower appellate court unless such findings are perverse or illegal - Appellate court is not to substitute its own view for that of the courts below in the absence of a substantial question of law. (Para 11)
(B) Property Law - Interpretation of sale certificates and auction documents - Where auction notices, bid sheets, and original sale certificates describe a piece of land as government land or a public road, a subsequent amended certificate that merely describes the land as "common" without explicitly conveying title cannot be used to establish ownership. (Paras 7-12)
Facts of the case:
A suit for declaration was filed regarding an open space of land adjoining the plaintiff's house, claiming it was for common use. The trial court and the lower appellate court concurrently found that the open space was government land and not the property of the defendants. However, the High Court reversed this decision, relying on an amended sale certificate to conclude that the open space was common between the defendants and thus belonged to them.
Findings of Court:
The High Court erred in reversing the concurrent findings of fact. The original auction notice, bid sheet, and the first sale certificate all described the property as being bounded by government open space and a public road, explicitly excluding the open space from the sale. The amended certificate did not state that the open space was owned by the defendants; rather, by describing it as "common," it indicated the land was not part of the purchased property.
Issues: Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC by reversing concurrent findings of fact and whether the amended sale certificate established ownership of the open space in favor of the defendants.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court's conclusion was essentially one of fact and therefore outside its jurisdiction while deciding an appeal under Section 100 CPC. Furthermore, since the original auction documents consistently excluded the open space from the sale, and the amended certificate failed to explicitly transfer title, the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the land was government land were correct.
Result: Appeal allowed, judgment of the High Court set aside and that of the lower appellate court restored.
(B) Property Law - Interpretation of sale certificates and auction documents - Where auction notices, bid sheets, and original sale certificates describe a piece of land as government land or a public road, a subsequent amended certificate that merely describes the land as "common" without explicitly conveying title cannot be used to establish ownership. (Paras 7-12)
Facts of the case:
A suit for declaration was filed regarding an open space of land adjoining the plaintiff's house, claiming it was for common use. The trial court and the lower appellate court concurrently found that the open space was government land and not the property of the defendants. However, the High Court reversed this decision, relying on an amended sale certificate to conclude that the open space was common between the defendants and thus belonged to them.
Findings of Court:
The High Court erred in reversing the concurrent findings of fact. The original auction notice, bid sheet, and the first sale certificate all described the property as being bounded by government open space and a public road, explicitly excluding the open space from the sale. The amended certificate did not state that the open space was owned by the defendants; rather, by describing it as "common," it indicated the land was not part of the purchased property.
Issues: Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC by reversing concurrent findings of fact and whether the amended sale certificate established ownership of the open space in favor of the defendants.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court's conclusion was essentially one of fact and therefore outside its jurisdiction while deciding an appeal under Section 100 CPC. Furthermore, since the original auction documents consistently excluded the open space from the sale, and the amended certificate failed to explicitly transfer title, the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the land was government land were correct.
Result: Appeal allowed, judgment of the High Court set aside and that of the lower appellate court restored.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether title to open space was acquired via sale deed or amended sale certificate — whether the suit is barred by Order 2 Rule 2 or Evacuee Property Act. (Para 5 )
3. High Court erred by deciding a question of fact under Section 100 CPC and relying on an amended sale certificate inconsistent with original auction documents. (Para 6 , 11 , 12 )
4. A High Court cannot reverse concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC unless a substantial question of law is established. (Para 11 , 13 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court judgment set aside — lower appellate court judgment restored. (Para 13 )
6. Can a High Court reverse concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC?
No, the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC is limited to substantial questions of law; it cannot reverse concurrent findings of fact unless such a question is established. (Para 11 , 13 )
7. Does a description of land as open space in a sale certificate's boundary description confer ownership of that space?
No, if the auction notice and original sale certificate describe the land as open space of Government and the amended certificate does not explicitly state the land was sold, it remains outside the purchased property. (Para 7 , 8 , 11 , 12 )
8. What is the evidentiary effect of an amended sale certificate that contradicts original auction notices and bid sheets?
An amended certificate that is not in consonance with earlier auction documents and does not explicitly grant title may be viewed as an attempt to oust existing users rather than a valid transfer of title. (Para 11 , 12 )
(1) THE issue which arises for consideration in this appeal by special leave pertains to an open space of land adjoining the house of the appellant.
(2) THE appellant had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that an open space of land to the west of his house was for common use of the appellant as well as Respondents 1 and 2 herein. According to the appellant. Respondent 2 was the owner of House No. 3-1-50 and Respondent 1 had purchased a house which was previously an evacuee property at the time when the property was sold by public auction. There was an open space of land which was surrounded by a road in the north, by the house of the appellant in the east, the house of Respondent 1 in the south and the house of Respondent 2 in the west. Evidence was led before the trial court which, inter alia, came tothe conclusion that the said open space was government land and had not been sold to Respondent 1 and nor was it a common property of Respondents 1 and 2. This conclusion was arrived at notwithstanding the fact that the Government had in the said suit contended that the said open land did not belong to it.
(3) THE documentary evidence on the basis of which the trial court came to the conclusion that the open space was government land and not the land of Respondent 1 was essentially that of the Evacuee Department. The trial court while giving the declaration that the land in question was government land issued a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, who are respondents in this appeal, from preventing the appellant from use of the said open space.
(4) IN appeal, the lower appellate court upheld the decision of the trial court. It, however, modified the trial courts judgment to the extent that it set aside the last relief which had been granted by the trial court to the effect that a perpetual injunction had been granted restraining the Municipal Council from removing doors, windows, water spouts, etc. on the western wall of the appellants land. The appellant herein had no complaint with regard to the modification to that extent of the trial courts decree but the respondents herein filed a second appeal before the High Court.
(5) BY order dated 11/1/1984, the High Court framed the following questions stated to be substantial questions of law:
"7. Whether the conclusion of the courts below that Defendant 1 does not get any title by virtue of the sale deed even including the amended sale deed, Exhibit-P2, is proper and legal when the Government itself admits that it was an evacuee property. Was it sold to Defendant 1 ? 2. Whether the dismissal of the previous suit bars the present suit under Order 2 Rule 2? 3. Whether the suit is barred by Section 33 of the Evacuee Property (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act?"
(6) THE High Court then proceeded to examine the evidence and came to the conclusion that the open space was situated in such a way that it was of no use to any person other than Respondents 1 and 2 and the said open space would go along with the two houses. The High Court did not expressly deal or answer the questions of law which had been formulated at the time of admission of the second appeal.
(7) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears to us that in fact no question of law, leave alone a substantial question of law, arose in the present case. It is not in dispute that the government auction which took place had described the property in question as being, inter alia, bounded on the north side by "open space public road". The bid sheet of 7/5/1970 also described the property as being bounded on the north by "open space of Government and public road". It is Property No. 3/129, Mohalla Berron Killa, Raichur which had been purchased which, as indicated in the bid sheet and in the advertisement, did not include the said open space. Also placed on record is a letter dated 7/7/1970 written by Respondent 1 to the Minister for Lab
