KIRPA RAM (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES & ORS. versus SURENDRA DEO GAUR & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 13 S.C.R. 1030 · Decided: 16-11-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1030
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
KIRPA RAM (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES & ORS.
v.
SURENDRA DEO GAUR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 8971 of 2010)
NOVEMBER 16, 2020
[L. NAGESWARA RAO, HEMANT GUPTA AND
AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: s.9 – Jurisdiction of civil court,
when not barred – Suit filed by respondents and for permanent
injunction claiming that the suit land situated in the revenue estate
of Village Basai Darapur, Delhi was owned and possessed by them
– Plea of appellant was that jurisdiction of civil court is barred  as
it is a boundary dispute between the village Basai Darapur and
village Shakarpur and such dispute has to be decided in terms of
s.28 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 – Held: The boundary
disputes are between two revenue estates and does not include the
demarcation of the land of the parties – s.83 of the Land Revenue
Act bars the jurisdiction of the civil court in respect of : (a) the
arrangement of area of the patwaris; (b) claims by any person to
any of the offices mentioned in ss.13 or 14 or to any emolument or
fees appertaining to such office, or in respect of any injury caused
by his exclusion therefrom, or claims by any person to nominate
persons to such offices; (c) the formation of the record of rights or
the preparation, signing, or attestation of any of the documents
contained therein, or the preparation of the annual register – No
such dispute arose for consideration in the present matter – Suit
was simplicitor for injunction based upon possession of the property
– The said suit could be decided only by the civil court as there was
no mechanism prescribed under the Land Revenue Act for grant of
injunction in respect of disputes relating to possession – Civil court
has plenary jurisdiction to entertain all disputes except in cases
where the jurisdiction of the civil court is either expressly or impliedly
barred in terms of s.9 of the Code – Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954
– s.28.
[2020] 13 S.C.R. 1030
1030
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1031
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:  s.100 – Formulation of
substantial question of law or reformulation of the same in terms of
the proviso arises only if there are some questions of law and not in
the absence of any substantial question of law – High Court is not
obliged to frame substantial question of law, in case, it finds no
error in the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:  Or.XLI r.27 – Permission to
produce additional documents – Held: Additional documents cannot
be permitted to be produced if they are not relevant to the plea
raised by the applicant.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the
Code was in respect of revenue documents in respect of Village
Basai Darapur. Admittedly, the appellants have no claim on any
part of the land of Village Basai Darapur. The appellants are
asserting their possession relating to Khasra No. 79 of Village
Shakarpur. The appellants have sought such revenue record in
the additional evidence as the same was not in their knowledge
and that no issue was also framed as to the correctness of the
area of Khasra No. 238 of Village Basai Darapur. The plaintiffs
have asserted their possession and title over Khasra No. 238 of
Village Basai Darapur whereas defendant No. 4 averred that the
land in dispute bears Khasra No. 79 situated in Village Shakarpur,
Delhi. It is to be noted that Issue Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were related to
ownership and possession of Khasra No. 238 and whether the
land in dispute formed a part of Khasra No. 79 of Village
Shakarpur. Therefore, the entire argument that no issue was
framed in respect of correctness of area of Khasra No. 238 is
untenable. The parties have understood the case about the area
of Khasra No. 238 falling in Basai Darapur or in Khasra No. 79 of
Village Shakarpur. Once the parties have understood the said
controversy and had adduced evidence before the trial court, the
appellant cannot be permitted to produce additional evidence in
the first appeal. Thus, the additional documents cannot be
permitted to be produced as they are not relevant to the plea
raised by the appellant. [Para 17][1038-E-G; 1039-A-B]
KIRPA RAM (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES v.
SURENDRA DEO GAUR
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1032
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
2. The Land Revenue Act does not expressly bar the
jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of boundary disputes.
The boundary di

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.