AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
F.M. Reis, J.—The above appeal has been admitted on 6/02/2003 on the following substantial questions of law:
a) Whether the Courts below overlooked that the suit was filed within one year from the date of judgment passed by the Deputy Collector u/s 14(3) of the Land Revenue Code and hence the suit was not barred by limitation?
b) Whether the Courts below erred in holding that the suit was barred by the principles of res judicata u/s 11 of the CPC in as much as bar to file the suit as prescribed in Section 14(5) of Land Revenue Code does not amount to res judicata.
c) Whether the Courts below erred in framing issue no.1 as there was no written statement filed by the defendants and hence the averments in the plaint are admitted.
Dealing with the first substantial question of law, there is no dispute that the order passed by the Collector is dated 2/12/1993 and the suit was filed by the appellants on 10/10/1994. u/s 14(4) of the Land Revenue Code, any suit disputing the correctness of the orders passed by the authorities u/s 14 of the Land Revenue Code is to be filed within one year from the date of such order. Considering the above, I find that the suit filed by the appellants is within the period of one year and, as such, the finding of the Courts below to the effect that the suit is barred by limitation cannot be sustained. On the basis of the material on record, it is evident that the suit was filed within the time prescribed. The substantial question of law is answered in favour of the appellants.
Dealing with the second substantial question of law, there is no dispute that the against the order passed by the Collector u/s 14 of the Land Revenue Code, a person aggrieved is entitled to challenge the correctness of the said order by filing a suit. The appellants have availed of this liberty by filing and assailing the findings of the Revenue Authority whilst disposing of the proceedings u/s 14 of the Land Revenue Code. Hence, it cannot be said that the findings arrived by the Revenue Authority are res judicata as they have not become final. In any event, it is well settled that any orders passed by the Revenue Authority are not binding on the Civil Court while deciding the issue of title. Hence, the Courts below are not justified to come to the conclusion that the findings arrived at by the Collector and the Revenue Authorities while deciding the dispute u/s 14 of the Land Revenue Code have become final. Hence, second substantial question is answered in favour of the appellants.
Dealing with the third substantial question of law, the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the suit property has not been identified essentially on the ground that the cadastral plan has not been produced by the appellants. The records reveal that there is material on record to substantiate that the residential house is existing in the suit property.
Shri S. Vahidulla, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents has disputed the said contention and pointed out that the residential house of the appellants is not located in the suit property. But however, whether the suit property claimed by the appellants includes the house as claimed by them is the matter which will have to be appreciated on the basis of record.
The appellants have also filed an application to produce the cadastral plan and for which leave has been granted whilst disposing of Miscellaneous Civil Application. As such, I find that in the interest of justice as the appellants have been permitted to produce the cadastral plan, it would be appropriate that the lower Appellate Court should decide the appeal afresh after allowing the appellants to produce the said documents on record, in accordance with law.
On perusal of the impugned judgment, passed by the Courts below, the Courts below have not at all considered the material on record to ascertain as to whether the claim of the appellants that they are in possession of the suit property is established or not. It is also to be noted that the respondents have also not filed a written statement disputing the contention raised in the suit. As such, I find that the lower Appellate Court has not appreciated properly the material on record adduced by the appellants to come to the conclusion that the appellants have failed to establish that the suit property belongs to the appellants.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I find that in the interest of justice, the impugned judgment passed by the learned District Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter be remanded to the lower Appellate Court for fresh decision in the appeal filed by the appellants. The appellants are permitted to produce the said plans. Needless to say, the respondents would be entitled to lead rebuttal evidence, if any. In view of the above third substantial question of law is answered accordingly.
In view of the above, I pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 3/08/2002 is quashed and set aside.
(iii) Regular Civil Appeal No.145/2000 is restored to the file of the learned District Judge at Panaji.
(iv) The learned District Judge is directed to decide the said appeal afresh after permitting the appellants to produce the said plan on record, in accordance with law.
(v) Needless to say the respondents would be entitled to lead rebuttal evidence, if they so desire.
(vi) All contentions of the parties are left open.
(vii) The appeal stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
(viii) The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge on 14/11/2011 at 10.00 a.m.