MOHAN KUMAR versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 2 S.C.R. 889 · Decided: 07-03-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017) 2 S.C.R. 889 
MOHAN KUMAR 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1412 of2008) 
A 
MARCH 07, 2017 
B 
~-J-, 
[R K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
Code o.f Civil Procedure, 1908: 
Or. 41, r. 23A; Or. 27, r. 5B - Construction on the land owned 
by the appellant, by the State Authorities - Collector passed order 
to remove the trespass and thereafter suggested the authorities to 
allot anotfler land in lieu of appellant's land - Authorities assessed 
the land of the appellant at the rate·of Rs. 1501- per sq. meter. and 
assessed the land proposed to be given to the appellant at the rate 
of Rs. 800/- per sq. meter - On challenge to action of the authorities, 
High Court directed the appellant to institute civil suit - Suit partly 
decreed by trial court directing the ~uthorities to acquire the land 
and to pay market value of the land to the appellant - However, 
rejected the claim of appellant to allot alternate land - Appeal by 
appellant - High Court dismissed the appeal holding that decree 
was not sustainable as the appellant had failed to examine the 
vendor of the land to prove his title - On appeal, held: High Court 
wrongly dismis~ed the appeal by not affording opportunity to the 
appellant-plaintiff to adduce proper evidence in support of his case -
High Court should have remanded the case to trial court taking 
recourse to power u/Or. 41, r. 23A, for retrial of the suit:__ Matter 
remanded to trial court for re.trial - Since the case is against the 
Stale and local bodies, court should endeavour to assist the parties 
in. settling the case in view of provisions u/Or. 27, r. 5B. 
Allowing the appeal and remanding the case to trial court, 
the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The High Court was of the view 'that it was 
obligatory upon the appellant. (plaintifl) to prove his title by 
examining his vendor and since it was .not done, the decree pass~d 
by the Trial Court in plaintiff's favour was not legally sustainable. 
Even assuming that the High Court was right in its view, it should 
889 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
890 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] 2 S.C.R. 
have given an opportunity to the appellant to prove his title by 
allowing bj~ to adduce proper evidence in support of bis case 
and for that; the High Court should have remanded the case to · 
the Trial. Court for retrial of the snit. This, the High Court could 
do by taking recourse to powers under Order 41 Rule 23A of the 
CPC. [Paras 19 - 21] (893-G-H; 894-A, D] 
1.2 The appellant suffered more damage to bis case in 
prosecuting his own appeal •. In the absence of any challenge laid 
by the defendants to the part of the decree passed in plaintiff's 
favour by the Trial Court, the appellate Court virtually passed 
the order in respondents' (defendants).favour in appellant's appeal. 
[Para 20] (894-B] 
1.3 The parties (plaintiff and defendants) are accordingly 
granted liberty to amend their pleadings and adduce additional 
evidence. The Trial Court shall then pass a judgment in 
accordance with law uninfluenced by any of the observations in 
'the present judgment and of the High Court. [Para 24] [894-F] 
2. Since the case is against the State Government ~nd local 
bodies, it is the duty of the Court to make, in the firs(instance, 
every endeavor to assist the parties to settle in respect of subject 
matter of the suit, in view of the provisions of Or. 27 r. SB of CPC 
and, if for any reason, settlement is not arrived at, then prnceed 
to decide the suit on merits, in acc!Jrdance with law. [Para 27] · 
(895-D] 
-
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1412 of 
2008. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.01.2005 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Madhya Pradesh in First Appeal No. 3 of 1998. 
C. L. Sahu, Ms. Hema Sahu, Rajendra Sahu, Rishabh Sahu,Advs. 
o 
for the Appellant. 
H 
Harshvardhan Jha, Ms. Yugandharan Jha, Adarsh Upadhyay, 
Purushaindra Kaurav, Mishra Saurabh, Ankit Kr. Lal, B. S. Banthia, 
Advs. for the Respondent. 
· The Judgment of the Court was delivered 
MOHAN KUMAR v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. This appeal is ,filed by 
plaintiff No.I against the judgment and final order dated 24.01.2005 
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur 
Bench at Gwalior in First Appeal No. 3 of 1998 whereby the High Court 
dismissed the appeal and, in consequence, dismissed the plaintiff's suit 
which was partly decreed by the Trial Court. 
2. We herein set out the fact

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