Daulat Ram and Others vs Devi Ram and Others

V.K. Ahuja, J.—This is a regular second appeal filed by the Appellant/Plaintiffs u/s 100 of the CPC against the judgment and decree, dated 26.7.2000, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan, vide which he affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub Judge, Arki, District Solan, H.P., dated 13.8.1997, decreeing the suit of the Plaintiff partly.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Appellants (hereinafter also referred as the Plaintiffs) filed a suit for declaration as against the Respondents (hereinafter also referred to as Defendants). The Plaintiffs had claimed that they alongwith proforma Defendants 4 to 6 are owners in possession of the land as described in the plaint, measuring 14 bigha 6 biswas. They also claimed the relief of declaration that the revenue entries showing Defendant No. 2 as owner are wrong and illegal and that Defendant No. 2 be restrained from claiming any payment of the acquired land from Defendants No. 1 and The Plaintiffs further alleged that the suit land was mortgaged by the predecessor-in-interest of Defendant No. 2 to the predecessor-in-interest of the Plaintiffs and the proforma Defendants vide mutation No. 191 for Rs. 130/-. They alleged that they had been enjoying the fruits of the suit land and since the statutory period for redemption of the suit land has already expired, they have become the owners by operation of law. They also challenged that the entries showing Defendant No. 2 as owner are wrong and illegal and on that basis, he is trying to get the possession of the land acquired from Defendant No. 3 to which he is not entitled, hence the suit filed by the Plaintiffs.

Defendants No. 1 pleaded that the Plaintiffs and the proforma Defendants are simply mortgagees and are not in possession of the suit land. It is also denied that they have become owner of the suit land by operation of law after expiry of the statutory period for redemption. Defendant No. 2 vide his separate written statement also challenged the entries showing the Plaintiffs as mortgagees of the suit land. Preliminary objections in regard to the jurisdiction etc. were also taken by the Defendants.

On the pleadings of the parties, as many as 13 issues were framed by the learned trial Court and it is not necessary to reproduce all of them. Parties led their evidence and the learned trial court vide its impugned judgment held that the Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration that they are owners in possession of the land measuring 8 bgiha 10 biswas excluding the land already acquired by the State of H.P. for Defendant No. 3.

Being aggrieved, the Appellants filed an appeal and the Defendants also filed cross objections. Vide impugned judgment, the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal as well as the cross objections.

The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction in view of the land acquisition proceedings?

Whether the suit of the Plaintiffs-Appellants, as laid, is maintainable?

The cross objections were also admitted but No. substantial question of law was framed while admitting the same, though as per law, substantial question of law was required to be framed at the time of admission of the cross objections. Neither any substantial question of law was formulated by the learned Counsel for the Objector nor the same was framed by the Court. However, it was directed that the cross objections would be heard alongwith the main appeal. Accordingly, in view of the law, the substantial question of law is required to be framed in the cross objections and the same is framed as under:

Whether the evidence, oral and documentary, was not rightly appreciated by the courts below?

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

In so far as the first substantial question of law is concerned, the learned trial Court had placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in Laxmi Chand and others Vs. Gram Panchayat, Kararia and others, wherein it was held by their Lordships in para 3 as under:

It would thus be clear that the scheme of the Act is complete in itself and thereby the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to take cognizance of the cases arising under the Act, by necessary implication, stood barred. The Civil Court thereby is devoid of jurisdiction to give declaration on the invalidity of the procedure contemplated under the Act. The only right an aggrieved person has is to approach the constitutional Courts, viz., the High Court and the Supreme Court under their plenary power under Articles 226 and 136 respectively with self-imposed restrictions on their exercise of extraordinary power. Barring thereof, there is No. power to the Civil Court.

In so far as the first substantial question of law is concerned, it is clear that the Civil Court was not competent to grant any relief in that regard and the aggrieved person has to approach this Court or the Supreme Court under their powers under Articles 226 and 136 of the Constitution, respectively, which were not invoked and therefore, in view of the above decision, it is clear that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred in regard to the land already acquired by Defendant No. 1 and the learned trial Court has rightly declined to grant any relief in that regard for the land already acquired, which findings were rightly affirmed by the learned Appellate Court.

In so far as the other findings are concerned, the learned trial Court had made a detailed reference to the evidence and had come to the conclusion that the entries showing Defendant No. 2 as owner of the suit land are correct. However, it is held that the Plaintiffs and proforma Defendants were required to invoke the rights foreclosure, which were not invoked by them. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the Respondent/cross objectors was not able to point out any infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court granting relief in favour of the Appellant for a part of the land. Nothing was pointed out that any conclusion was drawn wrongly by the learned trial Court and accordingly, it was rightly held on the basis of the evidence that the Plaintiffs and the proforma Defendants are owners in possession of the suit land and No. infirmity could be pointed out in the said findings recorded by the learned trial Court affirmed by the learned appellate Court. The learned Appellate Court had also made a brief reference to the evidence and nothing could be pointed out to hold that the said conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court was incorrect or call for an interference by this Court.

In a regular second appeal, there can be No. reappraisal of the evidence once both the courts have concluded and given the same findings. In so far as the land acquired is concerned, the learned trial Court has already observed that the amount in question has been withdrawn by Defendant No. 2 and, therefore, the relief of permanent injunction was rightly not granted in favour of the Plaintiffs and it was rightly held that the Plaintiffs were only entitled to the mortgaged amount, and not the compensation awarded, in proportion, to the total mortgaged amount of the suit land. But they have No. right to claim the award amount, which already stands withdrawn, except as above.

In view of the above discussion, it follows that there is No. merit in the appeal filed by the Appellants as also the cross objections filed by the Respondents, which are dismissed accordingly. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.