IMPORTANT POINTS
Issue regarding ownership rights coupled with the issue regarding proper interpretation of documents (exhibits) to prove the ownership rights over the suit land, do constitute substantial questions of law.
Order XXVII, Rule 5B, CPC requires that in a suit filed by Government or against Government court and the parties should endeavor to arrive at a settlement. Failing that only, suit should be decided on merits.

JUDGMENT :

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

(1) This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 18.11.2005 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No. 4083 of 2005 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants herein against the order dated 24.08.2005 of the Additional District Judge, Karnal in Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2005 affirming the judgment/decree dated 11.06.2002 of the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Karnal in Civil Suit No. 226 of 2001.

(2) In order to appreciate the issues involved in the appeal, which lie in a narrow compass, few facts need mention infra.

(3) The appellant-the State of Haryana is the defendant. The respondent-Gram Panchayat of village Kalehri is the plaintiff.

(4) The dispute in the suit relates to the land measuring 36 kanals 15 Marlas comprised in Khewat No. 361 min/350m, Khatoni No. 536 min, Khasra No 59 Gair Mumkin Nala situated in village Kalehri, Tahsil Gharaunda, District Karnal (hereinafter referred to as “the suit land").

(5) The respondent filed a suit bearing Civil Suit No. 226 of 2001 against the appellants in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Karnal. The suit was for a declaration that they are the owner of the suit land and that the appellant (State) have no right, title and interest in the suit land. The respondent also claimed prohibitory injunction against the appellants restraining the State authorities from interfering in their peaceful possession over the suit land. The respondent based their claim of ownership on several documents which, according to them, exclusively proved their superior title over every one including the State.

(6) The appellants filed their written statement and denied the respondent's claim of the ownership. The appellants then asserted their ownership rights over the suit land to the exclusion of every one. The dispute thus essentially centered around to the ownership of the suit land as to who is the owner of the suit land, viz., the appellants or the respondent.

(7) The Trial Court, on the basis of pleadings, framed issues. Both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence to prove their title over the suit land.

(8) The Trial Court by judgment/decree dated 11.06.2002 decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. On appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties, it was held that the respondent (plaintiff) is the owner of the suit land. Accordingly, injunction, as claimed by the respondent against the appellants, was also granted.

(9) The appellants, felt aggrieved, filed first appeal being Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Karnal. The first appellate Court vide judgment dated 24.08.2005 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment/decree of the Trial Court.

(10) The appellants, felt aggrieved, filed second appeal being R.S.A. No. 4083 of 2005 in the High Court. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, by impugned judgment/order, dismissed the second appeal in limine holding that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”). Felt aggrieved, the State filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.

(11) Heard Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the appellants. Though served, none appeared for the respondent.

(12) Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal and remand the case to the High Court for deciding the second appeal afresh on merits after hearing both the parties.

(13) Learned Single Judge while dismissing the appeal held as under:

“After hearing learned counsel, I am of the considered view that there is no question of law which would require determination by this Court under Section 100 of the Code. The aforementioned findings are pure findings of fact, which are based on ample evidence. Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal. Dismissed.”

(14)