CHINTAMAN NAMDEV PATIL (DEAD) versus SUKHDEV NAMDEV PATIL & ANR.

Citation: [2015] 12 S.C.R. 823 · Decided: 28-09-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 12 S.C.R. 823 
CHINTAMAN NAMDEV PATIL (DEAD) 
v. 
SUKHDEV NAMDEV PATIL&ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No.7991OF2015) 
September 28, 2015 
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: s.100; Or.20 r.4(2), Or.41 c 
r.31- Second appeal- Substantial question of law- Held: 
The impugned order shows that the High Court neither set 
out the case of the parties from their pleadings properly nor 
mentioned the findings recorded by the trial court and nor of 
the first appellate court - High Court also did not examine D 
the case in the context of legal provisions governing the 
issues and nor dealt with any submissions urged by the 
parties much less to record categorical finding on the 
questions framed - On the contrary, High Court formulated 
anotherquestion as the only question arising in the case for E 
decision which was not formulated as substantial question of 
law along with two questions already framed- Matter remitted 
to High Court for consideration afresh. 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the F 
High Court, the Court 
HELD: 1. It was legally obligatory upon the High 
Court to properly set out the case of the parties, findings 
recorded by the Trial Court and the first Appellate Court, G 
arguments of the parties on the questions of law framed 
and then answer the questions framed in the light of law 
applicable to the controversy involved by giving its 
reasoning. Or. 20 Rule 4(2) and Rule 5 r/w. Or. 41 Rule 31 
provides for this requirement. [Para 18) [828-E-F] 
H 
823 
824 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
Santosh Hazaro v. 
Purushottam Tiwari 
(deceased) by LRs. (2001) 3SCC179: 2001 (1) 
SCR 948 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference 
B 2001 (1) SCR 948 
relied on. 
Para 19 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISIDCTION: Civil Appeal No. 
7991 of2015 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.02.2014 of the 
C High Court of Judicature of Bombay Bench atAurangabad in 
Second Appeal No. 332 of 2007 
D 
Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwakar, Advocate, for the 
Appellant. 
Rajesh lnamdar, Davadatt Kamat, Javedur Rahman, Rauf 
Rahim, Advocate, for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
E 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 
1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff against the judgment 
F and order dated 25.02.2014 passed by the High Court of 
Judicature of Bombay Bench atAurangabad in Second Appeal 
No. 332 of 2007 which arises out of judgment and order dated 
11.04.2007 passed by the District Judge-3, Aurabgabad in 
Regular Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2005. 
G 
3. By impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the 
second appeal filed by the respondents herein. 
4. In order to appreciate the issues involved in the appeal 
which lie in a narrow compass, few relevant facts need mention 
H infra. 
CHINTAMAN NAM DEV PATIL (DEAD) v. SUKHDEV 
825 
NAMDEV PATIL [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] 
5. The appellant (plaintiff) filed a suit against the A 
respondents (defendants) herein in the Court of Civil Judge 
Qunior Division) Soyagaon being Regular Civil Suit No. 14 of 
2001 for declaration and perpetual injunction. The appellant 
sought a declaration that he is the owner of the suit land bearing 
no Gat No. 9 admeasuring 4 H 90 R situated at Village B 
Ghosala, Taluka Soegaon, Dist. Aurangabad. The appellant 
also sought injunction against the respondents restraining them 
from interfering in his possession. The respondents joined 
issues and contested the suit by filing written statement. The 
Trial Court framed several issues arising out of the pleadings C 
and parties led their evidence. The Trial Court vide judgment/ 
decree dated 14.12.2004 dismissed the suit. 
6. The appellant, felt aggrieved, filed appeal being R.C.A. 
No. 43 of 2005 before the District Judge-3, Aurangabad. Vide D 
judgment/decree dated 11.04.2007, the first appellate Court 
allowed the appeal and decreed the appellant's suit by granting 
the decree as prayed by him. 
7. The respondents, felt aggrieved, filed second appeal E 
being S.A. No. 332 of 2007 before the High Court. 
8. The High Court admitted the second appeal on two 
substantial questions of law arising in the case. By impugned 
judgment, the High Court allowed the second appeal and in 
F 
consequence dismissed the appellant's suit. It is against this 
judgment, the plaintiff has filed this appeal by way of special 
leave. 
9. Heard learned couhsel for the parties. 
10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant while 
assailing the lega
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.