NASIB KAUR AND ORS. versus COL SURAT SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH L.RS & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 1 S.C.R. 984 · Decided: 12-02-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. PATNAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2013] 1 S.C.R. 984 
NASIB KAUR AND ORS. 
v. 
COL SURAT SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH L.RS & 
ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1276 of 2013 etc.) 
FEBRUARY 12, 2013. 
[A.K. PATNAIK AND H. L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
s. 100 - Second appeal - Substantial question of Jaw -
Suits for declaration and permanent injunction - Decreed by 
High Court reversing the finding of first appellate court - Held: 
Evidence on record has established that defendants were in 
D lawful possession of suit iand by virtue of sale deeds and 
plaintiff had not been able to establish that he was owner 
thereof and, consequently, entitled to declaration of his title, 
recovery of possession and injunction - Therefore, the first 
appellate court had decided the core issue against the plaintiff 
E and no substantial question of law arose for decision in case 
by High Court u/s 100 -Judgment and decree of High Court 
set aside. 
The respondent in C.A No. 1276 sold some lands, 
which were further sold by the vendee to the contesting 
F defendants/appellants. The respondent filed a suit 
against original vendee and his transferees, for 
declaration that he was the owner and in possession of 
the suit land. The trial court protected the possession of 
the contesting defendants till the partition was effected. 
G The appeal of the respondent was dismissed. The 
respondent filed another suit for permanent injunction 
restraining the defendants from raising any construction 
on the suit land and alienating the same. The trial court 
dismissed the suit. The first appellate court dismissed the 
H 
984 
NASIB KAUR AND ORS. v. COL. SURAT SINGH 
985 
(DECEASED) THROUGH L.RS 
appeal of the plaintiff. The second appeals filed by the 
A 
wife of the plaintiff were allowed by High Court. 
In the instant appeals filed by the contesting 
defendants, it was contended for the appellants that the 
first appellate court had concurred with the findings that 
8 
the appellants had purchased the suit property and were 
in possession thereof and as there was no substantial 
question of law in the case, the High Court erred in 
reversing the concurrent findings of the courts below. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: In the instant case, the core issue was 
whether the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property . 
c 
. The findings of the first appellate court in the two cases 
show that in the suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff D 
had not been able to produce any evidence to prove his 
ownership and possession over the suit land; and in the 
suit for injunction, the first appellate court had held that 
the plaintiff had admitted in plaint that the predecessor-
in-interest of the defendants, had purchased the land from 
E 
the plaintiff and the joint owner. Thus, the evidence on 
record has established that the appellants were in lawful 
possession of the suit land by virtue of the two sale 
deeds and the plaintiff had not been able to establish that 
he was the owner thereof and, consequently, entitled to 
F 
declaration of his title, recovery of possession and 
injunction. Therefore, the first appellate court had 
decided the core issue against the plaintiff and no 
substantial question of law arose for decision in case by 
the High Court u/s 100, CPC. The impugned common 
G 
judgment and decree of the High Court is set aside. [para 
10, 12 and 13] [993-D-F; 994-A-B; 995-D, F-G] 
lshwar Dass Jain vs. Sohan Lal 1999 (5) Suppl. 
SCR 24 = (2000) 1 SCC 434; Achintya Kumar Saha vs. 
H 
986 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 1 S.C.R. 
A Nanee Printers and Others 2004 (2) SCR 28 = (2004) 12 SCC 
368 - cited. 
B 
Case Law Reference: 
1999 (5) Suppl. SCR 24 cited 
2004 (2) SCR 28 
cited 
para 
para 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
1276 of 2013. 
c 
From the Judgment & Order dated 11.11.2009 of the High 
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular Second 
Appeal No. 2579 of 1997. 
WITH 
D C.A. No. 1277 of 2013. 
E 
M.L. Saggar, Seeraj Baggar, Rajinder Mathur for the 
Appellants. 
R.B.S. Chahal, Jyotika Kalra for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A.K. PATNAIK, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. These are the appeals against the common judgment 
F dated 11.11.2009 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in 
R.S.A. Nos. 2579 of 1997 and 2482 of 2008 by way of special 
leave under Article 136 of the Constitution. 
3. The facts very briefly are that Col. Surat Singh filed Civil 
Suit No. 735-T on 18.04.1987 for declar

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