TOWN PLANNING MUNICIPAL COUNCIL versus RAJAPPA & ANR.

Citation: [2008] 1 S.C.R. 543 · Decided: 10-01-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2008] 1 S.C.R. 543 
TOWN PLANNING MUNICIPAL COUNCIL 
A 
v. 
RAJAPPA & ANR. 
(C.A. No. 2836 of 2001) 
JANUARY 10, 2008. 
B 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) 
~ 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 100: 
Second appeal - Formulation of question of law - c 
Requirements of - Suit claiming land/property to be ancestral 
property- Dismissed by trial Court-Affirmed by first appellate 
Court - Reversed by the High Court -On appeal, Held: High 
Court by interfering with the finding of facts, without formulating 
a question of law, violated mandate of s. 100 CPC - Moreover, 
the Judgment of the High Court is practically non-reasoned -
D 
---'.. 
Hence, matter remitted to High Court for consideration afresh 
after formulating the question of law-Karnataka Municipalities 
~ . 
Act- S.284(1)- Issuance of Notice- Mandatory requirement 
of. 
Respondent No.1 filed a suit in respect of certain E 
property claiming it to be his ancestral property. The 
defendants resisted the suit on the ground that the suit 
has been shown as 'Sega Local Fund' property since 1954 
·-.i 
belonging to the Town Municipal Council, as such it has 
F 
' 
every right to deal with in accordance with the Municipal 
~ 
Laws. Trial Court dismissed the suit in limine holding the 
suit land/property as 'Sega Local Fund' and no notice in 
compliance with the mandatory requirements in terms of 
s.284(1) was issued. The judgment of the trial Court was 
upheld by the first appellate Court. In appeal, judgment of G 
'1 
the trial Court as affirmed by the first appellate Court was 
reversed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
543 
H 
544 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
HELO: 1.1 The Second Appeal was allowed by the 
..,it... 
High Court without framing a question of law which Is 
clear·ly contrary to the mandate of Section 100. (Para - 5) 
[545·F, G] 
B 
Gian Dass vs. Panchayat, Village Sunner Kalan & Ors. 
JT (2006) 7 SC 102; Joseph Severane and Ors. vs. Benny 
Mathew and Ors. JT (2005) 8 SC 509; Sasikumar and Ors. 
.)( 
vs. Kunnath Chellappan Nair and Ors. JT (2005) 9 SC 171 ; 
Chadat Singh vs. Bahadur Ram and Ors. JT (2004) 6 SC 296 
c 
and Kanhaiyalal vs. Anupkumar JT (2002) 10 SC 98 - relled 
on. 
1.2 The High Court In second appeal Interfered with 
the findings of facts. Since judgment of Slngle Judge of 
the High Court Is practlcally non-reasoned, It Is not 
D poss Ible to find out as to what weighed with the High Court 
to upset the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the 
Trlal Court and the First Appellate Court. Hence, the 
>-
matter Is remitted to the High Court for fresh con· 
. ' 
slderatlon keeping In view parameters of Section 100 
E CPC. (Para - 6) [546·A, B, C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
2836 of 2001. 
From the final Order dat~d 12.1.1998 of the Hfgh Court of 
F 
Karnataka at Bangalore In R.S.A. No. 359of1993. 
r 
S. Nanda Kumar, Satlsh Kumar, Ananda Selvam and V.N. 
.... 
Raghupathy for the Appellant. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge Iii this appeal Is to 
the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High 
...... 
Court allowing the second appeal flied by the respondent under 
Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (In short 
'CPC'). The respondent no.1 had flied a suit In respect of 3 · 
H acres 22 guntas of land In Survey no.393/Aa (Palkl) situated In 
TOWN PLANNING MUNICIPAL COUNCIL v. RAJAPPA 
545 
, 
& ANR. [PASAYAT, J.] 
._..... 
Yadgir-8, Taluk Yadgir. Plaintiff claimed property to be ancestral A 
property. 
2. The defendants resisted the suit contending that the suit 
land being shown as 'Sega Local Fund' property since 1954, it 
is the property belonging to the Town Municipal Council, Vadgir B 
as such it has every right to deal with in accordance with the 
1-
Municipal Laws and that the plaintiff cannot prevent lawful action 
of the defendants by way of such suit. It was further contended 
that the plaintiff if not at all in possession of the suit land and that 
they have issued notification as required under the Municipal c 
Law to provide sites to houseless persons and the plaintiff, 
winning over the village Accountant, got his name entered in the 
column of cultivator without any right and, therefore, the suit of 
the plaintiff is not at all maintainable. With ~hese contentions, 
the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit. 
3. The Trial Court framed the issues and 

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