ROHINI PRASAD AND ORS. versus KASTURCHAND AND ANR.

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 88 · Decided: 03-03-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
ROHINI PRASAD AND ORS. 
v. 
KASTURCHAND AND ANR. 
MARCH 3, 2000 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Section JOO-Second Appeal-Interfer-
ence by High Court-On facts, trial court decreed respondents suit for 
possession of agricultural land-Appeal filed by the appellants was allowed 
dismissing the suit-Respondents went in second appeal-High Court af-
firmed the decree passed by trial court holding that there was no evidence 
on tecord that appellant was in possession of the land in continuation or 
renewal of the lease after its expi1y-Held, High Court is justified in 
interfering in second appeal where misreading of evidence by the appellate 
court would lead to miscarriage of justice or its finding is perverse-Madhya 
Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959-Sections 168 and 169. 
Section 9-Jurisdiction of civil court-Question of title-Rights of 
Bhumiswami-Held, determination of question of title is triable by civil court. 
Precedents-Law laid down by the High Court for a State by interpret-
ing the code-Held, it is not desirable for this court to give different interpre-
tation merely because another interpretation is possible. 
The land in dispute is agricultural land governed by the provisions of 
the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The original Bhumiswami 
of the land sold it to respondents by sale deed. Prior to this sale, they had 
granted lease in respect of this land to the appellants for the agricultural 
year 1975-76. The appellants contended that the lease granted extended 
for a further year and he had acquired Bhumiswami rights under section 
169 of the code. Respondents filed a suit for possession of agricultural 
land. The trial court decreed the suit. The appellants went in appeal. The 
first Appellate Court allowed the appeal holding that the original 
Bhumiswami had admittedly granted lease of the land for year 1975-76 
and a year further. Aggrieved, respondents filed second appeal. High 
Court affirmed the decree passed by the trial court. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended by the appellants that the 
88 
ROHINI PRASAD v. KASTURCHAND [D.P. W ADHW A, J.] 
89 
High Court cannot upset the finding of fact in the second appeal that no 
A 
substantial question of law had arisen and that civil court had no jurisdic-
tion to try the suit. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The High Court is justified in interfering in second 
appeal where misreading of evidence by the appellant court would lead to 
miscarriage of justice or its finding,is perverse. Further, there was no 
evidence to come to the conclusion that the appellants were in possession of 
the agricultural land in continuation or renewal of the lease after its 
expiry. (96-B] 
1.2. Civil Court has jurisdiction in suit f?I" possession based on title. 
There have been consistent decisions of the Madhya Pr'adesh High Court 
holding that the determination of the question of title is the province of 
Civil Court and unless there is any express provision to the contrary, 
exclusion of Civil Court cannot be assumed or implied. (94-D-E] 
Ramgopal v. Chetu, (1976) RN 146, referred to. 
1.3. The civil suit for possession based on title is triable by the Civil 
Court. That being the law laid by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh 
while interpreting the Code which applies to the Stat~ of Madhya Pradesh 
and held the field for all these years, it is not desirable for this Court to 
give a different interpretation and upset the settled law. Merely because a 
different view is possible and on that ground the decision of the decision of 
the High Court is erroneous should not be a ground to interfere. 
[95-G-H; 96-A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 447 of 1989. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.10.87 of the Madhya Pradesh 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
High Court in S.A. No. 77/83. 
G 
S.S. Khanduja, Y.P. Dhingra and B.K. Satija for the Appellants. 
R~jesh and Raj Kumar Gupta for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
90 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] Z S.C.R. 
D.P. W ADHWA, J. Appellant, Rohini Prasad, is aggrieved by the 
judgment dated October 19, 1987 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at 
Jabalpur delivered in Second Appeal. High Court had set aside the findings 
of the first Appellate Court that appellant had acquired Bhumiswami rights 
under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, the 'Sgde'). 
Appellant was defendant in civ

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