SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Bom) 656

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Vibha Kankanwadi, J.
Karbhari Aashruba Ingle - Appellant
Versus
Dhannulal @ Dhanraj Bhikulal Bhartiya - Respondent
Appeal From Order No. 30 of 2020; Civil Application No. 7992 of 2020
Decided On : 05-02-2021

Advocates appeared:
P.F. Patni, Advocate, V.A. Bagdiya, Advocate

The duty of the first Appellate Court to address all issues and decide the case by giving reasons.

Headnote:

Jurisdiction - Civil Court - Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Order 41, Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure - The court discussed the interpretation of the order passed by the Court, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, and the suit's limitation. The judgment and order passed by the first Appellate Court were set aside, and the appeal was restored for disposal according to law.

Fact of the Case:

The appeal from order challenged the judgment and order passed by the District Judge, setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge and remanding the suit for giving opportunity to both sides to lead evidence. The appellants argued that the suit was not within limitation and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. The respondents contended that the Trial Court erred in holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove ownership and that the dispute in respect of ownership was within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the first Appellate Court did not adhere to Order 41, Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the judgment was cryptic and did not deal with all the questions involved. The judgment and order passed by the first Appellate Court were set aside, and the appeal was restored for disposal according to law.

Issues: The issues involved the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, the suit's limitation, and the interpretation of the order passed by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of the first Appellate Court addressing all issues and deciding the case by giving reasons. It also highlighted the duty of the first Appellate Court to deal with all the issues and evidence led by the parties before recording its findings.

Final Decision: The appeal from order stands allowed, and the judgment and order passed by the District Judge are set aside. The appeal is restored for disposal according to law.

JUDGMENT

Vibha Kankanwadi, J. - Present appeal from order has been filed by original defendants challenging the judgment and order passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.232 of 2014 by learned District Judge-12, Aurangabad on 24.02.2020, thereby setting aside the judgment and decree passed by learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Kannad, District Aurangabad in Regular Civil Suit No.155 of 2011 on 22-08-2014 and remanding the suit for giving opportunity to both sides to lead the evidence, if any.

2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. P. F. Patni for appellants and learned Advocate Mr. V. A. Bagdiya for respondents.

3. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the appellants that the learned Trial Judge after considering the evidence on record had come to the conclusion that the suit was not within limitation. The said Court i.e. the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the said suit. The plaintiff had failed to prove that defendant No.1 is unauthorizedly possessing 3 Hectare 28 R land from the western side of Gut No.226 and defendant No.2 is possessing 1 Hectare 41 R land from eastern side of the said gut number unauthorizedly. The learned first Appellate Court on some surmises and interpretation held, that the suit is within limitation and the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the suit and remanded the matter without framing other points, which were involved in the matter. In fact, as per the case before the Trial Court, the defendants claimed that one Vitthal Aba was declared as tenant in respect of the said agricultural land. Bhikulal Kisanlal Bhartiya was the owner, however, as Vitthal Aba was declared as tenant, he was the tenant on the Tillers' day also. He became the owner of the property. He was not having any issue, but he was residing with defendant No.1. Therefore, he executed will, bequeath the suit property to defendant No.1 and the mutation to that effect had taken place in the revenue record in the year 1976 itself. Defendant No.2 had purchased 1 Hectare 41 R land from one Shankar Sukhdev, who was one of the nephew of Vitthal Aba. In fact, the declaration of tenancy in favour of Vitthal Aba was challenged up to this Court in Civil Revision Application No.570 of 1958. The interpretation of the decision by this Court has been done by both the Courts below in different way. The learned Trial Judge held that the declaration granted in favour of Vitthal Aba was not set aside by competent Court, though this Court had given a conditional order. Only upon the proof of certain facts, the concerned competent Court was to take a decision regarding cancellation of the tenancy granted to Vitthal Aba, however, the plaintiffs have not filed any such document rather the decision by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal. Under such circumstance, the learned Trial Judge had correctly held that the declaration continued and was not got set aside within limitation and, therefore, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction and the suit is not within limitation. Though the first Appellate Court accepted the position that no such record has been produced by the plaintiffs, went on to observe that when it is the question of ownership, it can be gone into by Civil Court and, therefore, the suit is within limitation. A total wrong approach has been adopted. Further, by setting aside the said order, the matter has been remanded, when it was, in fact, not even prayed for in the appeal memo. Learned Advocate for the appellants, therefore, prayed for setting aside the said judgment and order passed by the first Appellate Court.

4. Per contra, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that since the Trial Court had erred in holding that the plaintiffs have failed to prove the ownership and, in fact, had come with the case that entire possession over the land of the defendants was not unauthorized, the respondents approached the Appellate Court. In fact, original owner Bhikulal was getting the land cultivated through Vitt

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top