LexKANNAN (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. versus V.S. PANDURANGAM (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
_,, KANNAN (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. A v. V.S. PANDURANGAM (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. NOVEMBER 27, 2007 B [A.K.MATHURANDMARKANDEYKATJU,JJ.J Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: s.100(4) and Or. 14 r.1-High Court deciding second appeal c without formulating substantial question of law-Effect of~Suit for declaration of title and for possession-Plea of defendant of acquiring title by a,dverse possession-High Court in second appeal though not formulating any substantial question of law, but decreeing the suit holding that ingredients of adverse possession not satisfied by D defendant-·HELD: Judgment of High Court should only be set aside on ground of non-compliance withs. l 00(4) if some prejudice has been caused to the appellant before Supreme Court by not formulating such a substantial question of law-Ratio of decisions on Order 14, r.1 will also apply when a judgment of High Court is challenged on ground E that a substantial question of/aw was not formulated by High Court as required bys. l 00(4)-0n facts, parties knew well that question of adverse possession has been pleaded by defendant and evidence was led on the issue-Hence no prejudice has been caused to him by non- framing of a substantial question of law by High Court-High Court F has rightly held that defendant has not been able to establish that ingredients of plea of adverse possession (nee vi, nee clam, nee precario) were satisfied by him-Tenants would vacate the residential premises and possession of premises would be handed over as directed in the judgment. G Nedunuri Kameswaramma v. Sampati Subba Rao, AIR (1963) SC 884; Sayeda Akhtar v. Abdul Ahad, AIR (2003) SC 2985; Kali Prasad . Agarwal/a and Ors. v. Mis. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd and Ors., [1989] Supp. ' 591 H 592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R. A 1 SCC 628 and Shaikh Mahamad Umarsaheb v. Kadalaskar Hasham Karimsab and Ors., AIR (1970) SC 61, relied on. P. Lakshmi Reddyv. L. Lakshmi Reddy, AIR(1957) SC 314; Suraj Mal and Anr. v. Ram Singh and Ors .. AIR 1986SC1889 and A cha! Reddi B v. Ramakrishna Reddiar and Ors., AIR (1990) SC 553, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5472- 5475 of2001. From the Judgment and Order dated 17.8.2000 of the High Court C of Judicature at Madras in S.A. No. 1601-1604of1996. S. Mahendran for the Appellants. Mahabir Singh, P.B. Suresh and Vipin Nair (for MIS. Temple Law ' Firm) for the Respondents. D TI1e following Order of the Court was delivered ORDER I. These appeals are directed against the impugned judgment of the Madras High Court dated 17.8.2000 in Second Appeal Nos. 1601-04/ E 1986. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The respondent in these appeals, Pandurangan filed a suit being Original Suit No. 807of1982 (OS No. 135of1982 at Cuddalore) which F was decreed on 20.8.1984 by the trial court. In that suit the plaintiff ,.. alleged that he is the owner of the property in question, and he prayed for declaration of his title and for a decree of possession against the defendant. G 4. Against the judgment and decree of the trial court the appellant herein filed an appeal which was allowed by the Additional Sub-ordinate Judge, Cuddalore on 30.12.1985. The First Appellate Court set aside the judgment of the trial court and allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiffs suit, holding that the defendant had acquired title by adverse H possession over the property in dispute. - KANNAN (DEAD) BY LRS. v. V.S. PANDURANGAM 593 (DEAD) BY LRS. 5. Against the aforesaid decision the plaintiff (respondent herein), filed a second appeal which was allowed by the High Court by the impugned judgment dated 17 .8.2000. 6. The High Court relying on several decisions held that the ingredients of adverse possession (nee vi, nee clam, nee preeario vide P. Lakshmi Reddy v. L. Lakshmi Reddy, AIR (1957) SC 314, Sura} Mal and Anr. v. Ram Singh and Ors., AIR (1986) SC 1889, Aehal Reddi v. Ramakrishna Reddiar and Ors., AIR (1990) SC 553, etc. have not been satisfied by the defendant and hence the plaintiff's suit deserves to be decreed, since admittedly the plaintiff was the owner of the property in dispute. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that no substantial question of law was framed by the High Court as required by Section 100 (4) C.P.C. Hence he submitted that the impugned judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside. 8. It is true t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.