1. Dispute over title and possession of land involving a claim by a local authority and subsequent encroachment by third parties. (Para 2 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 329
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N.Kirpal : M.B.Shah
Kaluram
Versus
Shrinathdas
Case No. : 3848 of 1988
Date of Decision : 2/9/00
Important Points
The High Court cannot disturb concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal without formulating a substantial question of law. Furthermore, if the title of a party claimed by the respondents has already been rejected in favor of the appellant, the appellant's title is upheld.
Subject
Civil Law - Property Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Jurisdiction of High Court - Formulation of question of law - High Court cannot entertain a second appeal without formulating a question of law - In the absence of a question of law, the High Court has no jurisdiction to disturb concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the trial court and the lower appellate court. (Para 7)
(B) Property Law - Title and Possession - When a court of competent jurisdiction has already decided that a particular local governing body is not the owner of the land and that the land belongs to the claimant, the High Court cannot hold that the claimant failed to establish title, especially when the opposing party admits the land belongs to the said local governing body. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
The appellant's father purchased land, and subsequently, a suit for declaration of title and injunction was filed against a local governing body. The trial court and the lower appellate court both decreed the suit in favor of the appellant. Later, a third party encroached upon the land and transferred it to others. The appellant filed another suit for title and possession, which was also decreed in his favor by the trial court and affirmed by the lower appellate court. However, the High Court, in a second appeal, reversed these findings, concluding that the appellant had not established title.
Findings of Court:
The High Court erred in entertaining the second appeal without formulating a question of law. Since the dispute pertained to the ownership of the land, which is a question of fact, and there were concurrent findings by the lower courts, the High Court lacked the jurisdiction to reverse those findings. Furthermore, the respondents' own evidence suggested the land belonged to the local governing body, whose title had already been rejected in previous litigation.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in reversing concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal without formulating a question of law, and whether the appellant had established a superior title to the land.
Ratio Decidendi: A second appeal in the High Court must be based on a formulated question of law; it cannot be used to re-evaluate concurrent findings of fact. Where the title of a third party, as claimed by the respondents, has already been adjudicated as non-existent in favor of the appellant, the appellant's title is established.
Result: Appeal allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the decree passed by the trial court and that of the lower appellate court is confirmed.
(B) Property Law - Title and Possession - When a court of competent jurisdiction has already decided that a particular local governing body is not the owner of the land and that the land belongs to the claimant, the High Court cannot hold that the claimant failed to establish title, especially when the opposing party admits the land belongs to the said local governing body. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
The appellant's father purchased land, and subsequently, a suit for declaration of title and injunction was filed against a local governing body. The trial court and the lower appellate court both decreed the suit in favor of the appellant. Later, a third party encroached upon the land and transferred it to others. The appellant filed another suit for title and possession, which was also decreed in his favor by the trial court and affirmed by the lower appellate court. However, the High Court, in a second appeal, reversed these findings, concluding that the appellant had not established title.
Findings of Court:
The High Court erred in entertaining the second appeal without formulating a question of law. Since the dispute pertained to the ownership of the land, which is a question of fact, and there were concurrent findings by the lower courts, the High Court lacked the jurisdiction to reverse those findings. Furthermore, the respondents' own evidence suggested the land belonged to the local governing body, whose title had already been rejected in previous litigation.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in reversing concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal without formulating a question of law, and whether the appellant had established a superior title to the land.
Ratio Decidendi: A second appeal in the High Court must be based on a formulated question of law; it cannot be used to re-evaluate concurrent findings of fact. Where the title of a third party, as claimed by the respondents, has already been adjudicated as non-existent in favor of the appellant, the appellant's title is established.
Result: Appeal allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the decree passed by the trial court and that of the lower appellate court is confirmed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the appellant established superior title to the land over the local authority and subsequent encroachers. (Para 2 , 4 , 6 )
3. High Court erred by disturbing concurrent findings of fact without formulating a question of law and ignoring prior title determinations. (Para 7 , 8 )
4. Concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed in a second appeal unless a substantial question of law is formulated. (Para 7 )
5. Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; trial and lower appellate court decrees confirmed. (Para 9 )
6. Can a High Court disturb concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal without formulating a question of law?
No. The High Court lacks jurisdiction to reverse concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal unless a specific question of law is formulated. (Para 7 )
7. Does a prior determination of title against a primary claimant bind subsequent parties who claim the land belongs to that primary claimant?
Yes. When a court of competent jurisdiction finds that a primary claimant is not the owner, parties asserting the land belongs to that claimant cannot establish a superior title. (Para 8 )
8. Is it necessary to implead all occupants in a suit for declaration of title if no relief is sought against them?
No. Impleading such parties is not necessary if no relief is claimed against them and the purpose is simply to establish title. (Para 8 )
(1) THIS is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the High Court who reversed the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the trial court and the lower appellate Court and held that the appellant has not been able to prove its title to the suit land.
(2) THE case of the appellant was that his father had purchased land bearing Khata No. 42 in Survey No. 1019 measuring 16 biswas in village Chhapikheda in the year 1954. When the Gram Panchayat claimed rent from the appellants father he filed a civil suit No. 7-A/65 in the court of Civil Judge Khilihipur for declaration of his title and injunction against the Gram Panchayat. In the said suit Chunilal, the father of the appellant, claimed title to the land in question whereas the case of the Gram Panchayat was that the land had been leased to Chunilal at Rs. 2.50 per month in the year 1961. During the pendency of the suit Chunilal died in September 1967 and the appellant who claimed title to the land was impleaded as the party in the said suit.
(3) THE trial court on the basis of the evidence led before it decreed the suit for permanent injunction and declared the appellant as being the owner of the land in question. The Gram Panchayat then filed Appeal No. 36-A/68 but vide judgment dated 4th March, 1971, the Additional District Judge, Rajgarh affirmed the decree of the trial court.
(4) IN the year 1962 it is alleged that Prabhulal respondent No. 3 herein encroached upon the land in question and started construction. When notice was given by the appellant for removal of the encroachment the said Prabhulal transferred the land to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. When encroachment was not removed the appellant filed a civil suit No. 37-A/71 in the court of Civil Judge, Class II Khilchipur for determination of title and possession.
(5) THE aforesaid civil suit was decreed in favour of the appellant by the trial court on 5th March, 1974. The appeal filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 against the said decision met with no success and the Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal on 7th April, 1975.
(6) RESPONDENTS then filed a second appeal to the High Court. The High Court went into the evidence which had been led before the trial court and after examining the evidence came to the conclusion that the appellant had not been able to establish his title to the land in question.
(7) IN our opinion the High Courts judgment cannot be upheld for two reasons : firstly, the High Court has not formulated any question of law when it entertained the second appeal from the judgment of the Additional District Judge. That apart no question of law arise in the present case. The question was to see the owner of the land in dispute. The concurrent finding of facts arrived at by the trial court and the lower appellate court was that the land did not belong to the Gram Panchayat but it was owned by the appellant herein. The High Court, therefore, had no jurisdiction, in view of the evidence of the trial court, to come to the conclusion that the appellant had not been established his title to the land in question.
(8) EVEN on merits we find that as far as respondent is concerned, in his evidence DW 1, he has stated that the land belonged to the Gram Panchyant which was being occupied by him. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, therefore, did not claim any title to the land and their case was that the land belonged to the Gram Panchayat. In the earlier litigation between the Gram Panchayat and the appellant the final decision was that the land belonged to the appellant and not to the Gram Panchayat. It is true the respondent was not impleaded as a party in the earlier suit but it was not necessary to do so because no relief was claimed against the respondents herein and all that the appellant wanted to do was to establish his title to the land in question. When the court of competent jurisdiction having found that the Gram Panchayat was not the owner
