The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for recording reasons when dismissing an appeal, the jurisdictional value for the purpose of jurisdiction, and the maintainability of a single second appeal when multiple appeals are disposed of by a common order.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard on Admission.

2. The appellant/plaintiff has challenged the judgment and decree dated 28.08.2017 passed by the VIIth Additional District Judge, Bilaspur whereby Civil Appeal No.17A/17 preferred by the appellant/plaintiff was dismissed and counter appeal bearing Civil Appeal No.73A/17 preferred by respondents/defendants No.1 to 3 was allowed.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred hereinafter as per their status before the learned Civil Court.

4. Facts of the present case are that the plaintiff, in respect of shop (Survey No.1418/10 ad-measuring 0.01 acre) situated at village Beltara, Patwari Circle No.68, filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The plaintiff is the son of Late Siyaram Jaiswal whereas defendants No.4 to 6 namely, Asha Jaiswal, Anand Jaiswal and Ku. Rajni Jaiswal are his siblings. The suit shop was purchased by the father of the plaintiff through a registered sale deed on 19.10.1976 from Kedar Prasad Jaiswal.

5. After the death of the father of the plaintiff, the plaintiff and defendants No. 4 to 6 got possession of the suit property and defendants No. 1 to 3 were trying to dispossess the plaintiff, therefore, a report was lodged at Police Station Ratanpur and thereafter, the suit was filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

6. The defendants No. 1 to 3 filed their written statement wherein they pleaded that part of the suit property was purchased by Lalman through a sale deed dated 02.06.1957 for consideration of Rs. 95/- and possession was also handed over. After the death of Lalman, the part of the suit property was recorded in the names of defendant No. 1 and Durghatiya Bai. It is further stated that the plaintiff in connivance with revenue authorities mutated the property in the revenue records.

7. The learned trial Court framed issues and partly decreed the suit, and held that the suit shop was purchased by the father of the plaintiff through a registered sale deed dated 19.10.1976 from Kedar Prasad Jaiswal and he has the right to alienate the property; the plaintiff and defendants No. 4 to 6 are title holders and owners of the suit property but they are not in possession and there is no sufficient ground to grant decree of permanent injunction. Consequently, the Civil Suit was partly allowed.

8. The plaintiff preferred Civil Appeal No.17A/17 whereas defendants No.1 to 3 preferred counter appeal i.e. Civil Appeal No.73A/17. The learned lower appellate Court vide judgment dated 28.08.2017 dismissed the Civil appeal preferred by the plaintiff/appellant whereas counter appeal preferred by the defendants No.1 to 3 was allowed as under:-

9. In the present appeal, the appellant has not challenged the judgment and decree passed in Civil Appeal No.73A/17. The appellant has challenged the decree passed in Civil Appeal No. 17A/2017 only whereas both decrees are not separable; therefore, the instant second appeal preferred by the appellant cannot be decreed in the absence of challenge to judgment and decree passed in Civil Appeal No.73A/17.

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hasmat Ali v. Amina Bibi and others (Civil Appeal No.7109 of 2021 arising out of SLP(C) No.25119 of 2019) decided on 29.11.2021 in para-14 held that:-

“In case the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law, the High Court has no other option but to dismiss the appeal. However, in order to come to a conclusion that the appeal does not involve any substantial of law, the High Court has to record the reasons. Giving reasons for the conclusion is necessary as it helps the adversely affected party to understand why his submissions were not accepted. The Court must display its conscious application of mind even while dismissing the appeal at the admission stage. In our view, the High Court cannot dismiss the second appeal in limine without assigning any reasons for its conclusion.”

11. In the matter of Cholapilakkal Abdul Nazer v. Kuttanparambath K. L