THE PRINCIPAL GOVT. PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE & ANR. versus MR. JAMBU KUMAR MUTHA

Citation: [2014] 13 S.C.R. 1390 · Decided: 20-11-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 13 S.C.R. 1390 
A 
THE PRINCIPAL GOVT.PRE-UNIVERSITY 
B 
COLLEGE &ANR. 
v. 
MR. JAMBU KUMAR MUTHA 
(CivilAppeal No.10418of2014) 
NOVEMBER 20, 2014 
[T. S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Suit - For declaration of title over suit property, removal 
c of unauthorized construction raised over the same and 
permanent injunction restraining appellants-defendants from 
interfering with plaintiff's possession- Defendant's case was 
that suit property belonged to the State Government and that 
the same had been used for construction of a Government 
D .school building - Proposal by plaintiff-respondent no. 1 to 
part with a portion of suit property by way of settlement in 
favour of the State Government leaving the remainder of the 
property to the plaintiff - State Go.vernment rejected the 
proposal- Trial Court decreed the suit-Appeal by defendant-
E occupant - State Government or college did not challenge 
the decree but moved application seeking transposition as 
appellants in the appeals- Prayer declined by High Court-
Appellant-college filed an application seeking condonation 
· of delay in filing appeals - High Court dismissed the 
F application as it found the explanation unacceptable but also 
considered the State Government's refusal to accept the offer 
made by plaintiff-respondent no. 1 to be inexplicable and 
deplorable -
Held: High Court while• dismissing the 
application for condonation of delay made by the State 
G dismissed even the appeal preferred by the appellants-
occupant after obtaining leave of the court- While doing so 
High Court did not go into merits of the cont(oversy and simply 
declined to interfere with the impugned judgment- Delay in 
filing State appeal is condoned and matter remitted to the 
H · High Court for consideration afresh. 
. 1390 
THE PRINCIPAL GOVT.PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE v. 
1391 
MR. JAMBU KUMAR MUTHA 
Allowing the appeals and remitting the matters to A 
the High Court, the Court 
HELD : The High Court was not correct in 
dismissing the appeal summarily as it has done. Whether 
or not an appeal was maintainable at the instance of 
someone who was not a party to the suit was itself a B 
matter which ought to have engaged the attention of the 
High Court. The High court has not, however, adverted 
to that aspect and dismissed the appeal simply because 
the appeal preferred by the State had been dismissed. 
That apart, since an appeal against the very same C 
judgment and decree as was challenged in the appeal 
was already pending before the High Court, the High 
Court ought to have taken a more pragmatic view of the 
matter and condoned the delay in filing of the said appeal 
on such terms as it may it consider it proper. It is no D 
doubt true that the delay in filing of the State appeal 
was considerable but given the circumstances in 
which the delay had occurred, delay is condoned. 
[Paras 9 and 10][1395-C; 1395-E-H; 1396-A] 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
10418of2014. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13. 02.2012 of the 
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular FirstAppeal 
No. 296 of 2011. 
F 
With 
Civil Appeal No. 10419 of 2014. 
V. N. Raghupathy, S. N. Bhat, Advs.fortheAppellants. 
Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sr. Adv., B. Subrahmanya G 
Prasad, Anirudh Sanganeria, Advs. for the Respondent. 
H 
1392 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 13 S.C.R. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
T. S. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. These appeals arise out of a common order dated 
13th February, 2012 passed by the High Court of Karnataka 
B whereby Regular First Appeals No.806 of 2000 and 296 of 
2011 filed by the appellants have been dismissed. 
3. In OS No.125of1996 plaintiff-respondent No.1 in these 
appeals prayed for declaration of his title over.the suit property, 
removal of unauthorised construction raised over the same 
C and permanent injunction restraining defendants in the suit from 
interfering with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the 
suit property. The plaintiff's case in a nutshell was that he is 
the owner of the land measuring 1 acre 38 guntas situate in 
Malur Town, Kalur District fully described in the plaint out of 
D which the defendants had unauthorisedly occupied an area 
measuring 377 feet x 34 feet to construct a school building. 
This unauthorised occupation and construction was, according 
to the plaintiff, to be removed and possession over the entire 
suit property protected by issue of a permanent prohibitory 

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