Back
2008 Supreme(Del) 547
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Honble Mr.Justice Pradeep Nandrajog
Binod Bihari Jaina & Anr. .......... Appellants
VERSUS
Dr.Raja Bahadur Singh & Ors. ........... Respondents
FAO No.344/2002
Decided On :15.05.2008
Mr.Atul Jain, Advocate
Mr.Raj Kishore Gupta, Adv. for respondents 1 to 3 None for remaining respondents
The understanding and evidence presented by the parties regarding a specific issue in a case can negate claims of prejudice due to the lack of a specific issue framing.
Headnote:
Issue Framing - Property Dispute - N/A - The court discussed the framing of issues in a property dispute case and emphasized that if the parties understand that a particular issue covers the specific issue and have led evidence related to it, neither party can claim prejudice due to the lack of a specific issue.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the appellants, claiming ownership of plot Nos. 172-173 in a colony. The trial judge found in favor of the appellants, but the appellate judge set aside the judgment and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication due to a vital issue not being framed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the real issue was debated between the parties, even though a specific issue was not framed, and allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and directing the appellate judge to decide the case on its merits.
Issues: The main issue was whether the specific plot numbers existed in the colony, and a subsidiary issue of non-joinder of necessary party was also framed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that if the parties understand that a particular issue covers the specific issue and have led evidence related to it, neither party can claim prejudice due to the lack of a specific issue.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the appellate judge was directed to decide the case on its merits.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 1.4.2002 passed by the learned Appellate Judge disposing of RCA No.386/2000.
3. Vide impugned order dated 1.4.2002 the learned Appellate Judge has set aside the judgment and decree dated 1.4.1997 passed by the learned Trial Judge and has remanded the matter to the learned Trial Judge for fresh adjudication.
4. The learned Appellate Judge has held that a vital issue was not framed. The learned Appellate Judge has framed the issue and as a consequence has remanded the matter.
5. The issue framed by the learned Appellate Judge reads as under:-
“Whether the plot Nos.172-173 exist in Guru Angad Nagar, Khureji Khass, Shahdara, Delhi? OPP.”
6. To appreciate the controversy between the parties and the legality of the impugned order certain backdrop facts may be noted.
7. Respondents filed a suit for perpetual injunction on 12.3.1986 against the appellants seeking a decree of injunction restraining the appellants from taking forcible possession of plot No.172 and 173 ad-measuring 50 sq.yds, claiming that the said plots were carved out of Khasra No.52/6 and were given numbers 172 and 173 in the colony Guru Angad Nagar, Khureji Khass, Shahdara, Delhi.
8. The defence taken by the respondents was that no such plots existed in the colony and that the title deed relied upon by the appellants did not pertain to the land at site which was in possession of the respondents. According to the respondents, the land in question bore No.133, West Guru Angad Nagar, Gurudwara Road, Khureji Khass, Shahdara, Delhi.
9. On the pleadings of the parties the learned Trial Judge framed the following substantive issue:-
.“Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief claimed in the plaint? OPD.”
10. An issue relating to non-joinder of necessary party was also framed.
11. In view of the respective pleadings of the parties, evidence was led. Title documents were proved. Unfortunately for the parties the colony is an unauthorized colony and hence there is no approved layout. The issue was thus debated with reference to the location of the land at site and boundaries thereof with reference to the adjoining lands.
12. Deciding issue No.2, learned Trial Judge noted the claim of the respondents that they were the owners in possession of 50 sq.yds. of land bearing plot No.172-173, Guru Angad Nagar, Khureji Khass, Shahdara, Delhi and that the land was carved out of Khasra No.52/6. The learned Trial Judge also noted the defence of the appellants that the suit land was actually bearing Municipal No.133, Guru Angad Nagar, Khureji Khass, Shahdara, Delhi and that they were in possession thereof.
13. Discussing the evidence learned Trial Judge has observed in para 9: “It was for the plaintiffs, to prove that plot No.172-173 due existed in Khasra No.52/6”.
14. In para 13 the learned Trial Judge has held that: “It was for the plaintiffs to establish that they are presently in possession of plot No.172-173 but they have failed to lead any .evidence on record regarding existence of any such plot........”
15. Further finding has been returned after discussing the evidence that: “It cannot be said that any plot No.172-173 existed/exists in the year 1977 or even thereafter”.
16. The discussion has concluded in para 14 of the decision by the learned Trial Judge recording a conclusive finding that the evidence led by the parties did not establish existence of any plots bearing No.172-173, Guru Angad Nagar, Khureji Khass, Shahdara, Delhi.
17. It is obvious that pertaining to issue No.2 framed by the learned Trial Judge, parties were conscious of the fact that the debate is on the subject whether the suit land was bearing plot Nos.133, Guru Angad Nagar, Khureji Khass, Shahdara, Delhi or plot No.172-173, Guru Angad Nagar, Khureji Khass, Shahdara, Delhi.
18. Thus, the learned Appellate Judge has wrongly concluded that the real issue was not debated between the parties.
19. It is settle
