SRI Y.P. SUDHANVA REDDY & ORS. versus THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA MILK FEDERATION ETC.

Citation: [2018] 6 S.C.R. 853 · Decided: 25-04-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
853
SRI Y.P. SUDHANVA REDDY & ORS.
v.
THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA MILK FEDERATION ETC.
          (Civil Appeal Nos. 4412-4413 of 2018)
APRIL 25, 2018
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Possession – Appellants’ father had filed a suit for permanent
injunction against the respondent in relation to the suit land, which
was dismissed by the trial Court – After death of their father,
appellants again filed a suit against the respondent, which was again
dismissed by the trial Court as being barred by limitation but held
the appellants to be owner of the suit land – Aggrieved appellants
filed appeal before the High Court – Respondents also filed before
the High Court a cross objection u/Or.41, r.22 of CPC and an
application u/Or.41, r.27 of CPC alongwith copy of notification
vide which the State had acquired the suit land, which was allegedly
later allotted to the respondent – High Court dismissed the appeal
filed by the appellants and allowed the application u/Or. 41, r.27
and cross objection u/Or.41, r.22 filed by the respondent – Propriety
of – On appeal, held: Proper – After issuance of the notifications
under the Land acquisition Act and initiation of acquisition
proceedings by the State which culminated in passing of the award
as far back as in the year 1941, the appellants’ predecessor-in-title
(their father) ceased to be owner of the suit land and lost all his
rights to hold the suit land and claim possession – All ownership
rights of the appellants’ predecessor-in-title in the suit land stood
vested in the State once the acquisition proceedings were completed
under the Act – Documents filed by the respondent fully establish
that neither the appellants’ predecessor and nor the appellants had
any subsisting prima facie title in their favour over the suit land on
the date of filing the two suits – Insofar application u/Or.41,r.27 is
concerned, the first Appellate Court has jurisdiction u/Or. 41, r.27
to allow the parties to file additional evidence, if such documents
are required to decide the suit/appeal provided satisfactory
explanation is given as to why the documents could not be filed in
   [2018] 6 S.C.R. 853
853
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
854
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
the suit and why they are filed in appeal – The respondent, in instant
case, did give the explanation, which rightly found acceptance to
the High Court – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. 41, r.22 and
r.27 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.4 and 6.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.  After issuance of the notifications under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 and initiation of acquisition proceedings
by the State which culminated in passing of the award as far back
as in the year 1941, the appellants’ predecessor-in-title ceased
to be the owner of the suit land and lost all his rights to hold the
suit land and claim possession over it. [Para 21] [858-E]
2.1  Neither the predecessor-in-title of the appellants and
nor the appellants had any subsisting right, title and interest in
the suit land on and after 1941 consequent upon issuance of the
notifications by the State under the Act. The reason was that all
the ownership rights of the appellants’ predecessor-in-title in the
suit land stood vested in the State once the acquisition
proceedings were completed under the Act.  The appellants’ only
right was to either challenge the land acquisition proceedings as
being against the provisions of Act or to claim compensation
payable under the Act in relation to the suit land under Section
11 of the Act followed by reference proceedings under Section
18 of the Act and lastly, in appeal before the High Court for its
re-determination. [Para 23] [858-G-H; 859-A-B]
2.2  The appellants failed to file any document in rebuttal
to the documents filed by the respondent in appeal by way of
additional evidence with a view to show that the notifications
issued under the Act for acquiring the suit land, which were relied
on by the respondent in appeal, were either withdrawn or set
aside or not given effect to.  Such fact, alone would have enabled
the appellants to claim and assert their right of ownership over
the suit land. Such was, however, not the case of the appellants.
[Para 24] [859-C-D]
3. The appellants contended that there was non-compliance
of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC and hence the
application filed by the respondent ought not to have been allowed
by the High Court. The contention of appellant

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