Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.29182921 OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.3557835581 of 2015)
Tanuku Taluk Village Officers’
Association ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Tanuku Municipality & Ors. Etc. ….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are filed against the final
judgment and order dated 01.05.2015 passed by
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2019.03.12
16:36:13 IST
Reason:
the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the
1 1
State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh
in Second Appeal Nos.396 of 2004 and 414 of 2004
and C.R.P. Nos. 2069 of 2004 and 2073 of 2004,
whereby the High Court dismissed the said appeals
and Revision Petitions filed by the appellant herein.
3. A few facts need mention in brief infra for the
disposal of these appeals.
4. The appellant is the plaintiff and the
respondents are the defendants in the civil suits
filed by the appellant against the respondents in
relation to the suit land out of which these appeals
arise.
5. The appellant filed two civil suits against the
respondents in relation to the suit land. One was for
grant of permanent injunction (OS No.384 of 1986)
and the other was for recovery of arrears of rent (OS
No.226 of 1987). Both the civil suits were filed in
st
the Court of 1 Additional District Munsif, Tanuku.
2 2
6. By Judgment/decree dated 14.08.1996, the
Additional District Munsif decreed both the civil
suits.
7. The plaintiff also filed a suit bearing RCC
No.5/1987 before the Rent Controller(Principal
District Munsif), Tanuku for eviction of defendant
No.1(respondent No.1 herein). By order dated
20.01.1997, the Rent Controller passed a decree
and order in favour of the plaintiff and directed
defendant No.1 to handover the suit land to the
plaintiff.
8. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application
bearing I.A. No.268 of 1997 in R.C.C. No.5 of 1987
before the Rent Controller(Principal District Munsif),
Tanuku for releasing of cheque of Rs.42,400/
deposited by respondent No.1 towards the rent and
arrears of the suit land. By order dated 14.05.1997,
the Rent Controller dismissed the application filed
by the plaintiff.
3 3
9. The plaintiff felt aggrieved by the said order
and filed C.M.A. No.13 of 1997 before the Court of
Senior Civil Judge at Tanuku. Being aggrieved by
the order dated 20.01.1997 of the Rent
Controller(Principal District Munsif), defendant
No.1 filed C.M.A. No.8 of 1997 before the Court of
Senior Civil Judge at Tanuku.
10. The Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku took up both
the matters together. Vide order dated 21.01.2004,
the Senior Civil Judge allowed the application filed
by defendant No.1 and set aside the order dated
20.01.1997 passed by the Rent Controller(Principal
District Munsif) and dismissed the application filed
by the plaintiff by confirming the order dated
14.05.1997.
11. Being aggrieved by the order dated 14.08.1996
of the Additional District Munsif, defendant No.1
filed appeals being A.S. Nos.69 & 70/1996 before
the Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku. Vide order dated
4 4
21.01.2004, the Senior Civil Judge allowed the
appeals and set aside the order dated 14.08.1996
passed by the Additional District Munsif.
12. The appellant (plaintiff) felt aggrieved by both
the orders of the First Appellate Court dated
21.01.2014 and filed two Second Appeals being
S.A. Nos.396 & 414 of 2004 and C.R.P.Nos.2069
and 2073 of 2004 in the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh.
13. The High Court admitted the Second Appeals
on the following three substantial questions of law.
“a) Whether the lower appellate court is right
in holding that plaintiff society became
defunct without there being any evidence to
that effect ?
b) Whether the immovable property
purchased by a registered society under
registered sale deeds shall automatically
vests with its admitted tenant without there
being any deed of conveyance ?
c) Whether a tenant while admitting that it
was only a tenant inducted into possession
for a rent can claim ownership over the very
same property contrary to the provisions of
Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act ?”
5 5
14. By impugned order, the High Court dismissed
the appeals as well as revision petitions, which has
given rise to filing of these appeals by way of special
leave in this Court by the plaintiff.
15. So, the short question, which arises for
consideration in these appeals is whether the High
Court was justified in dismissing the plaintiff's
Second Appeals.
16. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
are inclined to allow the appeals and while setting
aside the impugned order, remand the case to the
High Court for the disposal of the second appeals
and revision petitions afresh on merits as indicated
below.
17. The need to remand the case to the High Court
has arisen because we find, on perusal of the
impugned order, that the High Court though
6 6
admitted the second appeals on the aforementioned
three substantial questions of law but instead of
answering these questions, dismissed the appeals
by answering the question, which was not framed.
18. In our view, the High Court failed to see that
the second appeal could be decided only on the
question(s) framed under Section 100 (4) of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred
to as “the Code”). However, if at the time of hearing,
the High Court considers that the second appeal
involves any other substantial question(s) of law, it
has the jurisdiction to frame such question(s) but
only by assigning the reasons. At the same time,
the respondent is also entitled to argue at the time
of hearing that the question(s) though framed are
not the substantial question(s) of law involved in
appeal (See Section 100 (5) of the Code and its
proviso).
7 7
19. A fortiori , the disposal of the second appeal by
the High Court by answering the question(s) which
was/were not framed either at the time of admission
of the second appeal or framed without ensuring
compliance of the mandatory procedure prescribed
in proviso to Section 100 (5) of the Code is not
legally sustainable.
20. As mentioned above, though the High Court
framed three substantial questions but did not
answer any of them on their respective merit either
way. Instead the High Court dismissed the second
appeals on the question, which it had not framed.
The question on which the High Court dismissed
the appeals was in relation to the maintainability of
the suit and this question was not a part of the
three questions framed and nor the High Court
framed such question by taking recourse to powers
under Section 100(5) proviso of the Code.
8 8
21. Learned counsel for the respondents made
sincere attempt in her submission that the findings
recorded by the High Court on its merit is just and
proper and hence should not be disturbed. We
cannot accept her submission in the light of what is
held above. The respondents, therefore, will be at
liberty to raise such pleas before the High Court in
accordance with law consequent upon the matter
now being remanded to the High Court.
22. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals
succeed and are accordingly allowed. The
impugned order is set aside. The appeals are
remanded to the High Court for their hearing afresh
on the merits and in accordance with law. Needless
to say, the High Court will dispose of the appeals as
well as the revision petitions because all the four
matters were heard together and disposed of by a
common order keeping in view the requirements of
9 9
Section 100 of the Code, as mentioned above,
insofar as they relate to second appeals.
23. We have not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the case having formed an opinion to
remand the case to the High Court for their fresh
disposal on the merits as indicated above. The High
Court will accordingly decide the second appeals as
well as revision petitions uninfluenced by any
observations made in the impugned order and this
order.
.………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
…...……..................................J.
[DINESH MAHESHWARI]
New Delhi;
March 12, 2019
10 10