Trial and Appellate Courts must ensure consistency in findings, as contradictory decisions can lead to judicial impropriety and necessitate a remand for fresh adjudication.

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court, in terms whereof learned First Appellate Court while allowing the appeal filed by the respondent herein, set aside the decree passed by the learned Trial Court in favour of the present appellant. This appeal was admitted on 19.06.2024 on the following substantial questions of law:-

“1. Whether learned Trial Court at the first instance erred in deciding issues No.3 to 7 in favour of the defendants despite recording in the judgment that said issues were not pressed before it?

2. Whether learned First Appellate Court also erred in not appreciating that as the findings returned by learned Trial Court vis-a-vis issues No.3 to 7 were erroneous, the findings returned thereupon could not have been acted upon by learned Appellate Court also for deciding the appeal?”

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are as under:-

Appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiff’), filed a suit for mandatory injunction on the grounds that plaintiff was joint owner of the suit land, comprise in Khata/Khatauni No. 11/13, Khasra No. 1, measuring 18-11 Bighas, at Mauja Suhawa, Tehsil Arki, District, Solan, H.P. According to the plaintiff, defendants constructed a water tank upon 1 Biswa of the said land, without the consent of the plaintiff as well as other co-owners. As per the plaintiff, as the water tank stood constructed without acquiring the land of the plaintiff as per law and further as the defendants had not paid any compensation of the land utilized for the construction of the water tank, hence the suit for mandatory injunction.

3. The defense of the defendants was that the construction of the water tank over the land was with the consent of the plaintiff and the entire construction was carried out and completed in his presence. It was also the stand of the defendants that free water was being supplied to the plaintiff from the water tank constructed on his land and it was not possible to vacate the suit land as the construction of tank had already been completed.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Trial Court framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land, as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act, conduct and acquiescence from filing the present suit? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPD

6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

7. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD

8. Relief.”

5. On the strength of the evidence led by the parties in support of their respective contentions, the issues were decided as under:-

“Issue No.1 : Partly yes.

Issue No.2 : No

Issue No.3 : Yes

Issue No.4 : Yes

Issue No.5 : Yes

Issue No.6 : Yes

Issue No.7 : Yes

Relief : The suit is partly decreed as per the operative part of the judgment.”

6. Thereafter, Learned Trial Court went on to pass the following decree in favor of the plaintiff:-

“This suit coming on 22nd day of June, 2022 for final disposal before me (Raghav Gupta Civil Judge, Arki) in the presence of Ms. Madhuri, Advocate, for the plaintiff and Shri Nitesh Gautam, Ld. ADA, for the defendants. It is ordered that the suit of plaintiff is partly decreed for mandatory injunction for the purpose of payment of compensation as per provision of Land Acquisition Act.