LexMAHANT RAM KHILAWAN DAS versus STATE OF M.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 4 S.C.R. 601 _,, MAHANT RAM KHILAWAN DAS A v. STATE OF M.P. (Civil Appeal No. 5194 of 2001) MARCH 10, 2008 B [fARUN CHATTERJEE & HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 100 - Second Appeal - High Court setting aside the order of first appellate court without formulating the substantial question of law properly - c Justification of- Held: Not justified- Question so framed was not substantial question of law but was only a question of fact - It was based on alleged admissions ·of appellant ignoring other documents and evidence already on record on basis of which first appellate court decreed the appellant's suit- Hence, D matter remitted to High Court for framing proper substantial question of law. iViR owned a temple and agricultural lands as a if/ianager of the same. He bequeathed the lands to the appellant to succeed the same as Manger. In 1987-88, the E Collector started auctioning the lands. The appellant filed a suit for declaration of title with regard to the suit lands and also c. decree for permanent injunction restraining the respondent-State from interfering with the enjoyment • and possession of the same. Trial Court dismissed the F T suit. However, the appellate court allowed the same. In second appeal the High Court framed the substantial question of law that whether in the light of the admission of the appellant-plaintiff that his name did not find place in the revenue records and that he was forcibly G dispossessed by the Collector in 1987, the courts below erred in granting a decree for declaration and injunction. ~ The High Court allowed the appeal. Hence the present appeal. 601 H 602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 4 S.C.R. A Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter, the "1- Court HELD: 1. In second appeal, the High Court should not substitute the findings of the courts below with its own findings unless there is total absence of the 8 consideration of material evidence. (Para 6) [606-0, E] Kondiba Dagadu Kadam Vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar 1999 (3) sec 722 - relied on. 2.1 In the instant case, the High Court did not frame C the substantial question of law properly in the second appeal so as to interfere with the judgment of the first appellate court. The question of law as framed by the High Court was totally based on the alleged admission of the appellant that his name did not find mention in the revenue D records and that he was forcibly dispossessed by the Collector of the District. At the same time, even assuming that there was an admission on the part of the appellant, before reversing the judgment of the first appellate court, the High Court ought to have considered the other material E evidence on record on which the first appellate court had based its findings. (Para 5) [605-F, G, H; 606-A] 2.2 The entries in the record of rights only raise a presumption that the person whose name is entered in the record of rights is in possession of the suit lands but F the same can be rebutted by adduction of evidence- documentary or oral on record. Therefore, even if there was alleged admission of the appellant that his name did not find place in the revenue records, it would not conclusively prove that the appellant had failed to prove G his title to the suit lands when there was ample evidence on record to prove such title. So far as the question whether the appellant was forcibly dispossessed in 1987, the same was a question of fact, which could not at all be taken to be a substantial· question of law. Therefore, the H substantial question of law so framed by the High Court .. 1 , MAHANT RAM KHILAWAN DAS v. STATE OF M.P. 603 was not a substantial question of law on the basis of which A the decision of the first appellate court could be reversed. (Para 5) [606-A, B, C, DJ 2.3 From the findings of fact arrived at by the first appellate court, it is clear that the other material evidence on record would clearly show that the presumption of the 8 entries in the record of rights relating to the suit lands was amply rebutted and the finding that the appellant had title to the suit lands was amply proved. The first appellate court had drawn an adverse inference against the respondent by coming to a finding that th~ respondent C had not adduced any evidence to the effect that for doing an amendment in the Khasra or other government records, the appellant or his Guru Baba Ram Dass were giv
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.