Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.K. AGRAWAL, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.
Mohan Kumar – Appellant(s)
VERSUS
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. – Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL No.1412 OF 2008
Decided On : 07-03-2017
Facts of the case:
The appellant is plaintiff No.1 whereas the respondents are the defendants in the concerned suit.
The land bearing Survey No. 899 measuring 18 Biswas situated at Apaganj Mama Ka Bazar Lashker Gawlior, M.P. was purchased by appellant along with his mother from its previous owner Jaswant Kumar through registered sale deed dated 15.09.1941. The physical possession thereof was delivered to the appellant and his mother by their vendor and their names were also mutated in the revenue record as the "owners of the land".
Three temples and two Darghas were alleged to have been constructed on the land in dispute while latrines and bathrooms as well as septic tanks were also alleged to have been constructed by the Municipal Corporation of Gwalior for the public user and sewer lines and pipe lines were also laid.
The Collector passed an order to remove the said trespass by dispossessing them therefrom.
The Collector suggested respondent No.2-Municipal Corporation of Gawlior to allot 352.65 sq.meter of land near Surya Narain Temple situated in Daulatganj to the appellant in lieu of the appellant's land in question.
Upon disputes arising and reaching Supreme Court, the appellant and his mother filed a civil suit for a declaration of the title, permanent injunction and for the recovery of the possession in respect of the disputed land.
The Trial Court partly decreed the suit filed by the appellant.
The High Court not only dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff but proceeded to dismiss the entire suit including the finding of the Trial Court regarding ownership of the appellant over the suit land.
Finding of the Court:
High Court ought to remand the matter to trial court.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Certainly. Here are the key points from the provided legal document:
The Supreme Court emphasized that when dismissing a suit, the plaintiff is entitled to an opportunity to present evidence, particularly to prove ownership or title over the disputed land (!) .
The case involved a land dispute where the appellant claimed ownership based on a registered sale deed and possession, but the High Court dismissed the suit and appeal, ruling that the appellant failed to prove his title due to the absence of examination of his vendor (!) (!) .
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court should have remanded the case to the trial court to allow the appellant to adduce additional evidence to establish his ownership, rather than dismissing the suit outright. This remand was considered necessary to ensure a fair opportunity for the appellant to prove his case (!) (!) .
The Court noted that the High Court's failure to remand, despite its finding that the appellant did not prove his title, resulted in an unjust decision. The Court held that the proper course of action was to remand the matter to the trial court for a fresh trial on merits, allowing the parties to amend pleadings and adduce additional evidence (!) (!) (!) .
The Court highlighted the importance of procedural fairness, especially in land disputes, and emphasized that courts should assist parties in reaching settlement, particularly when the government or public authorities are involved. If settlement is not possible, the case should be decided based on the merits after proper opportunity is provided (!) (!) (!) .
Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and directed the trial court to decide the suit afresh, considering the observations and procedural principles outlined (!) .
Would you like a more detailed analysis or assistance with specific legal questions related to this case?
JUDGMENT
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
This appeal is filed by plaintiff No.1 against the judgment and final order dated 24.01.2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Gwalior in First Appeal No. 3 of 1998 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal and, in consequence, dismissed the plaintiff's suit which was partly decreed by the Trial Court.
2. We herein set out the facts, in brief, to appreciate the issues involved in this appeal.
3. The appellant is plaintiff No.1 whereas the respondents are the defendants in a suit out of which this appeal arises.
4. The case of the appellant is that the land bearing Survey No. 899 measuring 18 Biswas situated at Apaganj Mama Ka Bazar Lashker Gawlior, M.P. was purchased by him along with his mother from its previous owner Jaswant Kumar through registered sale deed dated 15.09.1941. The physical possession thereof was delivered to the appellant and his mother by their vendor and their names were also mutated in the revenue record as the "owners of the land".
5. Three temples and two Darghas were alleged to have been constructed on the land in dispute while latrines and bathrooms as well as septic tanks were also alleged to have been constructed by the Municipal Corporation of Gwalior (respondent No.2) for the public user and sewer lines and pipe lines were also laid by the Public Health Engineering Department (respondent No.3) on a part of the said land.
6. The appellant, accordingly, approached the Collector, Gwalior for removing the trespass committed on their land. The Collector passed an order to remove the said trespass by dispossessing them therefrom under Section 4(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Public Premises and Devasthanam (Regulation) Act.
7. The Collector then reconsidered the appellant's request and suggested respondent No.2-Municipal Corporation of Gawlior to allot 352.65 sq.meter of land near Surya Narain Temple situated in Daulatganj to the appellant in lieu of the appellant's land in question.
8. The Municipal Corporation of Gwalior expressed their agreement to the proposal made by the Collector and accordingly deputed an Engineer to evaluate the cost of the land owned by the appellant and his mother and of the proposed land situated near Surya Narain Temple. A report was, accordingly, received assessing the value of the land of the appellant at the rate of Rs. 150/- per sq. meter. So far as the land situated near Surya Narain temple was concerned, it was assessed as Rs. 800/- per sq. meter. Letters were also addressed by the Collector and Legal Aid in this regard.
9. Dissatisfied with the action of the respondents, the appellant and her mother filed a petition being W.P.(MP No. 290/1989 before the High Court. It was disposed of by the High Court on 22.06.1989 directing the Municipal Corporation to remove latrines, sewer lines, septic tank constructed on the land shown in Appendix `A'. As no action was taken, the second Misc. Pet. No. 859 of 1989 was filed by the appellant which was also disposed of by the High Court by order dated 16.03.1992 directing the appellant to institute a civil suit for getting the dispute adjudicated. Aggrieved by the said order of the High Court, the appellant filed a petition being S.L.P.(c) No. 11815 of 1992 before this Court. This Court affirmed the order of the High Court vide its order dated 08.04.1994.
10. The respondents, in the meantime, started construction of the temple/mosque on the land area being 40x6 sq.ft. owned by the appellant and his mother. One Pump House was also being constructed by digging bored in the land by respondent No.3 on the land shown in Appendix `A'. The appellant, therefore, served notice on the Municipal Corporation on 04.08.1994 raising objections to the authorities but no action towards exchange of the land shown in Appendix `B' in respect of the land in dispute was taken and nor the activities were discontinued.
11. The appellant and his mother, therefore, filed a civil suit bearing Civil
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
