2016 Supreme(SC) 997

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.K. AGRAWAL, R. BANUMATHI, JJ.
LALITESHWAR PRASAD SINGH & ORS. – APPELLANTS
Versus
S.P. SRIVASTAVA (D) THR. LRS. – RESPONDENT
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4426 OF 2011
Decided On : 15-12-2016

IMPORTANT POINTS
First appellate court, in its judgment, must explicitly set out the points for determination, record its reasons thereon and give its reasonings based on evidence; and the points for determination must cover all important questions involved in the case and they should not be general and vague.
Appellate court being the final court of facts, its judgment must reflect application of mind by recording its findings supported by reasons.
Suit for declaration of title without any further consequential relief for possession or injunction would be barred u/s 34, Proviso, Specific Relief Act
Party impleaded with leave of the Court under Order XLI Rule 27, CPC would be entitled to adduce evidence and make submissions.

Headnote:(a) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XLI Rule 31 – First appeal – First appellate court, in its judgment, must explicitly set out the points for determination, record its reasons thereon and give its reasonings based on evidence – Points for determination by a court of first appeal must cover all important questions involved in the case and they should not be general and vague. (Para 11, 13)

       (b) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 96 – First appeal – Appellate court is the final court of facts – Its judgment must reflect application of mind by recording its findings supported by reasons – The first appellate court, while reversing the findings of the trial court, must record its findings in clear terms explaining how the reasonings of the trial court is erroneous. (Para 12, 13)

       (2015) 1 SCC 391 – Relied upon

       (c) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XLI Rule 31 – High Court neither framing points for determination nor discussing the evidence adduced by the defendants as also admission of the first respondent-Plaintiff – Not tenable. (Para 14)

       (d) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 34, Proviso – Suit for declaration of title without any further consequential relief for possession or injunction – Barred u/s 34, Proviso. (Para 15)

       (e) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XLI Rule 27 – Party impleaded with leave of the Court – Entitled to adduce evidence and make submissions. (Para 16, 18)

       Facts of the case:

       The first respondent-Plaintiff Shailendra Prasad Srivastava filed a suit praying for declaration of his title with respect to suit property in Khasra No. 123, 124, 269, 274, 997 and 959 of Khata No. 31 of village Bairiya and village Koloha Pagambarpur Schedule I and Schedule II properties respectively against the second respondent-Defendant Baidya Nath Prasad Verma alleging that the suit property detailed in Schedule I and II belonged to Girish Chandra Prasad.

       In the Revisional Survey of Records, Tarawati Devi, the widow of Girish Chandra Prasad got the property recorded in the name of her grandson Umashanker Prasad. The said Umashanker Prasad died during the lifetime of Tarawati Devi in the year 1965.

       The first respondent-Plaintiff got cancellation of revenue receipt in the name of defendant.

       The second respondent-Defendant Baidya Nath Prasad filed mutation appeal.

       When the first respondent-Plaintiff came to know that the second respondent-Defendant is trying to claim title over the suit property through Tarawati Devi alleging that the suit property belonged to Tarawati Devi, the first respondent-Plaintiff being the agnate of Tarawati Devi filed a suit for declaration of his title.

       The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the first respondent-Plaintiff has not produced the necessary documents to prove his title to the suit property.

       On appeal, the High Court reversed the findings of the trial court and held that as per the Revisional Survey Record of Right, property was recorded in the name of Umashanker Prasad, grandson of Girish Chandra Prasad and on the death of Girish Chandra Prasad, his widow Tarawati Devi became the absolute owner of the property and on her death in 1985, the property devolved on her agnate-the first respondent-Plaintiff.

       Finding of the Court:

       Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.

       Result: Impugned judgment set aside and matter remitted back to High Court for fresh consideration.