HARYANA STATE & ANR. versus GRAM PANCHAYAT VILLAGE KALEHRI

Citation: [2016] 3 S.C.R. 159 · Decided: 29-06-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 3 S.C.R. 159 
HARYANA STATE & ANR. 
v. 
GRAM PANCHAYAT VILLAGE KALEHRI 
(Civil Appeal No.2516 of2008) 
JUNE 29, 2016 
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.) 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
s. 100 - Second appeal - Substantial question of law - Issue 
as regards ownership rights and proper interpretation of documents 
to prove the ownership rights over the suit land - Dismissal of second 
appeal in limine since the appeal did not involve substantial qi1estion 
of law - On appeal, held: Where the court is required to properly 
interpret the nature of the documents, it only involves legal issue 
based on admitted documents, thus the appeal involved substantial 
questions of law - High Court was upon obligation to decide the 
legality and correctness of such findings - High Court could do so 
only when it had first admitted the appeal and framed substantial 
questions of law as required uls. JOO - Thus, the High Court 
committed jurisdictional error in dismissing the appeal in limine -
Matter remanded to the High Court for deciding the second appeal 
afresh on merits. 
Or. 27 r. 5B - Suit against the Gover11111ent or a public officer 
- Duty of court to assist in arriving at a settlement - On facts, no 
endeavour made by Court or by parties to arrive at a settlement -
Only 011 failure of settlement being reported, case should have been 
finally decided on merits. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The appeal does involve the substantial questions 
of law and, therefore, the High Court should have admitted the 
appeal by framing substantial questions of law arising in the case 
and then after giving notice to the respondent for its final hearing 
as provided u/s. 100 CPC should have decided the appeal finally 
on merits. As a matter of fact, having regard to the nature of 
controversy and keeping in view the issues involved, such as 
159 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
160 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 3 S.C.R. 
the issue regarding ownership rights coupled with the issue 
regarding proper interpretation of documents to prove the 
ownership rights over the suit land, these issues do constitute 
substantial questions of law. Where the Court is required to 
properly interpret the nature of the documents, it does not involve 
any issue of fact as such but it only involves legal issue based on 
admitted documents. It is, therefore, obligatory upon the High 
Court to decide the legality and correctness of such findings as 
to which party's documents are to be preferred for conferring 
title over the suit land. The High Court could do so only when it 
had first admitted the appeal and framed substantial questions of 
law as required u/s.100 CPC.[Paras 14,15) [162-F-H; 163-A-C] 
1.2 The High Court committed jurisdictional error when it 
dismissed the appeal in limine saying that it only involves question 
of fact. Thus, the case is remanded to the High Court for deciding 
the appeal on merits. The High Court is requested to admit the 
second appeal and frame appropriate substantial questions of law 
as arc required u/s.100, keeping in view the documents and the 
findings recorded by the courts below on the question of 
ownership over the suit land. [Paras 16,17,18) [163-C-E) 
2. This is a case filed by a statutory public body against the 
Government and it is in relation to the ownership rights on a 
piece of land ·which both are asserting against each other. No 
endeavour was made by the Court or by the parties to arrive at a 
settlement keeping in view the mandate of Order 27 Ruic SB. It 
should have been done and only on failure being reported, the 
case should have been finally decided on merits in accordance 
with law. [Paras 20, 22] [163-H; 164-A, G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2516 
of2008. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.11.2005 of the High Court 
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R. S. A. No. 4083 of 2005. 
Samar Vijay Singh, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Advs., for the Appellant. 
The Judgment of the Com1 was delivered by 
ABHAY MANOIIAR SAPRE, J. I. This appeal is filed against 
the finaljudgment and order dated 18.11.2005 of the High Court of Punjab 
HARYANA STATE & ANR. v. GRAM PANCHAYAT VILLAGE 
KALEHRI [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] 
and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No. 4083 of 2005 whereby the 
High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants herein against 
the order dated 24.08.2005 of the Additional District Judge, Kamal in 
Civil Appeal No. 30 of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.