NATHUNI RAM versus RAGHUPAT RAM AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 36 · Decided: 23-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
NATHUNI RAM 
v. 
RAGHUPAT RAM AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 23, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJITPASAYAT ANDR.V. RA VEENDRAN,JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; s.100: 
Suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession over suit 
C land-Dismissed by trial Court-First appellate Court accepting claim of the 
appellant in respect of part of the suit land confirming possession of defendants 
on remaining part-Appeal preferred by appellant and not by defendant-
Dismissed by High Court reversing the relief granted by first appellate 
Court-Correctness of-Held: Relief granted by first appellate Court was 
D reversed by High Court even without any challenge from defendants-Hence, 
appeal allowed to the extent confirming the relief granted to the appellant 
earlier by the first appellate Court-Practice and Procedure-Appeal. 
Appellant filed a suit for declaration of title and for confirmatiou of 
possession over the suit land. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. On 
E appeal, the first appellate Court allowed the appellant's claim in respect of 22 
decima.I of land and allowed the defendants to have possession over 14 decimals 
of land. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal under Section 100 of the Code 
of Civil Procedure, questioning correctness of the view expressed by the first 
appellate Court. Though the defendants had not questioned correctness of the 
F view expressed by the first appellate court, yet the High Court set aside the 
order of the first appellate Court and confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. 
The appeal filed by the appellant was allowed by the first appellate Court. 
Appellant still not satisfied with the judgment of first appellate Court filed an 
appeal, which was dismissed by High Court setting aside order of the first 
appellate Court. In fact, the relief that was granted to the appellant by the 
G first appellate Court was reversed. Hence the present appeal. 
H 
Appellant contended that the course adopted by the High Court is clearly 
contrary to law; and that in the absence of an appeal by the defendants it was 
not open to the High Court to take a contrary view. 
36 
NATHUNI RAMv. RAGHUPATRAM [PASAYAT, J.] 
37 
-· 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD: There are confusions galore in the High Court's order; firstly 
the appeal was dismissed but the first appellate Court's order which was in 
favour of the appellant was set aside without any challenge from the 
defendants; secondly, in the appellant's appeal the relief which was not 
questioned by anybody could not have been nullified; thirdly, the High Court's B 
ultimate conclusion was that the appeal was allowed while it was otherwise. 
Hence, the appeal is allowed to the extent that the relief granted to the appellant 
r 
by the first appellate Court stands confirmed. (Paras 10 and 11) 
(38-G-H; 39-A-B) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 910 of2007. 
c 
From the Judgment and Final Order dated 14.9.2004 of the High Court 
of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Appellate Decree No. 37 of 2002. 
Sunil Kumar, Anita Kanungo and Mridula Ray Bhardwaj for the Appellant. D 
Syed Ali Ahmad, Syed Tanweer Ahmad, S.S. Bandyopadhyay, Mohd. 
Shah Nawaz Hasan, Shabana Saifi and Mohan Pandey for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJlT P ASAY AT, J. I. Leave granted. 
E 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned 
Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court. The plaintiff, who had filed the 
second appeal before the High Court under Section I 00 of the Code of Civil 
Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'Code'), has filed this appeal. 
F 
> 
3. Detailed reference to the factual aspect is really unnecessary. 
4. Plaintiff had filed the suit for declaration of title as well as confirmation 
of possession over the suit land. The description of the property was given 
as plot No. 51 measuring 36 decimal of land appertaining to Khata No. 80 of G 
Village Japla, Dhorhara, District Palamu. The suit was dismissed by the learned 
Munsif Daltonganj . 
. 1. 
5. An appeal was carried before the first appellate court. In the appeal, 
learned Vlll Additional District Judge, Palamau held that the appellant's claim 
was to be accepted in respect of 22 decimal of land and that the defendants H 
38 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 3 S.C.R. 
A had got possession over 14 decimals of land. Appellant filed appeal under 
Section 100 of the Code questioning correctness of the view expressed by the 
first appellate court. 
6. Tht:

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