Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 2836 of 2001
PETITIONER:
Town Planning Municipal Council
RESPONDENT:
Rajappa & Anr.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/01/2008
BENCH:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the learned
Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court allowing the second
appeal filed by the respondent under Section 100 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short \021CPC\022). The respondent no.1
had filed a suit in respect of 3 acres 22 guntas of land in
Survey no.393/Aa (Paiki) situated in Yadgir-B, Taluk Yadgir.
Plaintiff claimed property to be ancestral property.
2. The defendants resisted the suit contending that the suit
land being shown as \021Sega Local Fund\022 property since 1954, it
is the property belonging to the Town Municipal Council,
Vadgir as such it has every right to deal with in accordance
with the Municipal Laws and that the plaintiff cannot prevent
lawful action of the defendants by way of such suit. It was
further contended that the plaintiff if not at all in possession
of the suit land and that they have issued notification as
required under the Municipal Law to provide sites to houseless
persons and the plaintiff, winning over the village Accountant,
got his name entered in the column of cultivator without any
right and, therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is not at all
maintainable. With these contentions, the defendants prayed
for dismissal of the suit.
3. The Trial Court framed the issues and came to hold that
under Section 284(1) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, (in
short the \021Act\022) previous notice for the suits is mandatory and
there was no compliance with the said requirement and,
therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed in limine. It was
also pointed out that entry in the Khasra Pahani and R.O.R.
right from 1954-55 indicated the suit land as \023Sega Local
Fund\024 and the same was not challenged by the plaintiff or his
ancestors.
4. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court found that
there was no merit in the suit and accordingly the suit was
dismissed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court
upheld it. The High Court, as noted above, reversed the
findings and allowed the second appeal.
5. At the outset it is to be indicated that the Second Appeal
was allowed without framing a question of law which is clearly
contrary to the mandate of Section 100. This position has
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
been highlighted in several decisions. (See Gian Dass v.
Panchayat, Village Sunner Kalan & Ors. (JT 2006 (7) SC 102),
Joseph Severane and Ors. v. Benny Mathew and Ors. (JT
2005 (8) SC 509), Sasikumar and Ors. v Kunnath Chellappan
Nair and Ors. (JT 2005 (9) SC 171), Chadat Singh v. Bahadur
Ram and Ors. (JT 2004 (6) SC 296) and Kanhaiyalal v.
Anupkumar (JT 2002 (10) SC 98).
6. Apart from that it is noted that the judgment of the
learned Single Judge is practically non-reasoned. The High
Court in second appeal interfered with the findings of facts.
Therefore, since the judgment is practically non-reasoned, it is
not possible to find out as to what weighed with the High
Court to upset the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the
Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. We remit the matter
to the High Court for fresh consideration keeping in view
parameters of Section 100 CPC.
7. The appeal is allowed. No costs.