Back
2014 Supreme(All) 2665
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Anil Kumar, J.
Sagir Ahmad & Others - Appellant
Versus
Munni Devi - Respondent
Second Appeal No. - 375 of 1998
Decided On : 12-05-2014
For the Appellant : Mohd. Arif Khan
For the Respondent: R.P.Singh,R.P. Singh
The central legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of complying with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC and the need for the appellate court to independently assess the evidence and provide reasons for its decision.
Headnote:
Misinterpretation - Property Dispute - Order 41 Rule 31 CPC, Section 54 of the Act, Girja Nandini Devi v. Bijendra Narain Choudhury, Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, United Engineers and Contractors Vs. Secretary to Govt. A.P. And others, A.M. Sangappa @ Sangappa Vs. Sangondeppa and another, B.V. Nagesh and Anr. v. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy - The court discussed the misinterpretation of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC and its mandatory nature, citing various legal provisions and case laws. The court emphasized the need for the appellate court to independently assess the evidence and provide reasons for its decision, and set aside the judgment due to non-compliance with the procedural requirements.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming possession of a disputed property. The appellate court's judgment was challenged on the grounds of misinterpretation of the order and violation of provisions of CPC.
Finding of the Court:
The appellate court failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC, leading to a non-compliant judgment.
Issues: Misinterpretation of the order and violation of provisions of CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the mandatory nature of complying with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC, citing various legal provisions and case laws.
Final Decision: The judgment of the appellate court was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with the law.
Anil Kumar,J.: -
Heard Shri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate, Shri R. P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.
2. Facts in brief of the present case are that initially, plaintiffs/appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction on the ground that the property in dispute which consists of house situated at Vazirbag, Town-Bahraich is in their possession, purchased by their father by way of two sale deeds on 09.12.1959 and 24.09.1967. There are two doors in the east direction of the house and also Sahan as well as Nikas. After the way of Sahan, there is a public toilet which is used by the plaintiff's and their ancestors. However, respondents have no right or title in respect of the way in question shown in the map filed along with the plaint and tried to take possession of the way and want to make a construction therein, on 20.09.1992, and put the material/bricks over the land in dispute. So, the suit has been filed with the prayer that defendants may be restrained to do so, registered as Regular Suit No.1047 of 1992, dismissed by order dated 30.11.1994 passed by IVth Additional Munsif, Bahraich.
3. Aggrieved by the said facts, the plaintiff/appellant filed an appeal bearing Civil Appeal No.110 of 1994, dismissed by order dated 17.09.1998 passed by IInd Additional District Judge, Bahraich.
4. In view of the above said factual background, the present appeal has been filed, admitted on the following question of law : -
1. When the Court below is mislead and misconstrued the order dated 24.09.1967.
2. Whether the judgment passed by the court below is violation of the provision 41 and 31 C.P.C."
5. After hearing learned counsel for parties and going through the record, the admitted position which emerge out is to the effect that while passing the judgment and decree dated 17.09.1998 in Civil Appeal No.110 of 1994, the appellate court has not framed the point of determination as provided under Oder 41 Rule 31 CPC the said exercise is mandatory on the part of the appellate court as per judgment given by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and another Vs. Ranchod and others, 2009 (27) LCD 407 has held as under: -
"Section 54 of the Act, insofar as relevant for the purposes of the present appeals, says that subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, applicable to appeals from original decrees, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any enactment for the time being in force, an appeal shall only lie in any proceedings under this Act to the High Court from the award, or from any part of the award of the Court.
Order XLI CPC deals with appeals from original decrees. Order XLI Rule 31 lays down that the judgment of the appellate court shall be in writing and shall state (a) the points for determination, (b) the decision thereon, (c) the reasons for the decision, and (d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled. This provision has come up for consideration in innumerable occasions and its meaning and scope has been explained. It is not necessary for us to refer to various decisions but we will refer to one of the recent judgments given in G. Amalorpavam and Ors. v. R.C. Diocese of Madurai, [2006] 3 SCC 224, wherein this Court observed as under: -
"The question whether in a particular case there has been substantial compliance with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC has to be determined on the nature of the judgment delivered in each case. Non-compliance with the provisions may not vitiate the judgment and make it wholly void, and may be ignored if there has been substantial compliance with it and the higher appellate court is in a position to ascertain the findings of the lower appellate court. It is no doubt desirable that the appellate court should comply with all the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. But if it is possible to make out from the judgment that there is substantial compli
