Back
2013 Supreme(SC) 609
Supreme Court of India
H.L. DATTU, DIPAK MISRA, JJ
Jhau Lal & Another
Versus
Mohan Lal & Others
Civil Appeal Nos. 5339-5340 of 2013 (@ Special Leave Petition (C)Nos. 2565625657 of 2012)
Decided on : 08-07-2013
The court emphasized the need for the High Court to focus on the grounds for dismissal of the suit rather than declaring the suit itself as not maintainable.
Headnote:
Adverse Possession - Property Ownership - The court found that the suit filed for declaration of permanent injunction claiming ownership of the property on the basis of adverse possession was not maintainable. The High Court's observation that the suit itself was not maintainable was not sustained by the Supreme Court, and the matters were remanded to the High Court for fresh disposal.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs/appellants filed a suit for declaration of permanent injunction claiming ownership of the property on the basis of adverse possession. The Trial Court dismissed the suit for non-payment of costs, leading to the filing of Civil Revision Petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court's finding that the suit filed by the plaintiffs/appellants was not maintainable based on the claim of ownership through adverse possession was not sustained by the Supreme Court. The matters were remanded to the High Court for fresh disposal.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the suit filed by the plaintiffs/appellants for ownership of the property based on adverse possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court held that the High Court should have primarily focused on the ground on which the Trial Court had dismissed the suit, rather than declaring the suit itself as not maintainable. The observation by the High Court was not sustained, and the matters were remanded for fresh disposal.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court remanded the matters to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations made by the Supreme Court.
Judgment :
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against the judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Revision Petition (O & M) Nos.6838 and 6840 of 2010, dated 29.05.2012. By the impugned judgments and orders, the High Court has given a finding that the suit filed by the plaintiffs/appellants for declaration of permanent injunction claiming ownership of the property on the basis of adverse possession itself is not maintainable.
3. The Trial Court had dismissed the suit by invoking its powers under Section 35-B of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code' for short) for non-payment of costs. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Trial Judge, the plaintiffs/appellants had filed the Civil Revision Petition Nos.6838 and 6840 of 2010. While disposing of the aforesaid Civil Revision Petitions, the High Court has observed that the suit filed by the plaintiffs/appellants is not maintainable, based on the claim made that they are the owners of the property on the basis of adverse possession.
4. In our view, while deciding the Civil Revision Petitions, the High Court should have concentrated primarily on the ground on which the trial Court had dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs/appellants. There was no reason for the High Court to have observed in its order that the suit itself was not maintainable before the Trial Court. In that view of the matter, we cannot sustain the impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court. Therefore, while disposing of these appeals, we remand the matters to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, keeping in view the aforesaid observations made by us in the order. No costs.
Ordered accordingly.
