ZAMINDAR DHARMIK AND SHEKSHNIK NYAS versus SIDDHANATH (DEAD) BY LRS.

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 758 · Decided: 22-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ZAMINDAR DHARMIK AND SHEKSHNIK NY AS 
v. 
SIDDHANATH (DEAD) BY LRS. 
MAY22,2007 
\ 
B 
[DR. ARIJITPASAYAT AND LOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
c 
s.100-Earlier suit for declaration of title and for injunction by 
respondent-Dismissed-Present suit filed by respondent on the ground of 
adverse possession by concealingfact of dismissal of earlier suit-Question 
raised in second appeal as to whether courts below were right in accepting 
respondent's claim of possession in his own right or adverse possession-
Held: Is substantial question of law deserving decision on' merits. 
D 
The dispute relates to the land which was part of a religious trust, of 
which appellants were trustees. Respondent·was vegetable vendor who 
collected vegetable from the land on contract from trust. In 1969, Government 
issued a notice for ejectment under s.248 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, claiming 
the land to be land of the Government and dispossessed the appellantsi The 
E appellants filed application for adjudication of tight and title before the Sub-
divisional Officer. The Sub-divisional Officer passed order dated 19.9.1974 
declaring the appellant as Bhumiswami of the land in dispute. Thereafter· 
appellant filed an application for restoration of possession which was allowed 
by Tehsildar. The Patwari went to.the spot and fourid respondent in possession 
F of the land. 
Plantiff-respondent filed an appeal challenging the order dated 
19.9.1974 which was dismissed. The revisions were also dismissed. 
Thereafter respondent filed civil suit for declaration of title and for injunction 
against the appellant. The appellant filed an application for discovery of 
G documents. The respondent did not file the said documents and the said suit 
was dismisseJ on 17.8.1983. 
No further appeal or revision or any other proceedings against the said 
order were opted and thus this decision became final. Thereafter Respondent 
not deterred by previous orders, filed present suit claiming adv~e possession. 
II 
758 
-\., 
I 
F
-t-
. ..( 
ZAMINDAR DHARMIK AND SHEKSHNIK NYAS v. SIDDHANATH (DEAD) BY LRS. [PASAYAT, J.) 759 
Respondent concealed the institution of his previous suit as well as the order A 
of its dismissal dated i7.8.1983. 
The state authorities in collusion with respondent admitted that the 
respondent was in possession since 1950. The appellants could not submit 
the relevant documents of the ownership of the land, however, filed some 
B 
documents and memorandum of appeal presented by respondent which was 
taken on record. 
I 
The trial Court decreed the suit. The first appellate Court dismissed 
the appeal In the memo of appeal, questions formulated were "(i) Whether 
the Courts below have not erred in decreeing plaintiff-respondent's suit; (ii) c 
Whether the plaintiffs claim could be decreed without there being any 
challenge to the decision of the Revenue Authorities for restoration of 
possession to the appellant; (iii) Whether the Courts below are right in 
accepting the plaintiffs claim of possession in his own right or adverse 
possession; (iv) Whether the First Appellate Court was right in rejecting the 
applications, I.A. 5 and I.A. 6; (v) Whether the decisions are rendered by· D 
wrongly placing burden of proof on the appellant The High Court dismissed -
.)-
the appeal filed under s.100 CPC holding that no substantial question of law 
is involved. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matt~r to High Court, the Court 
E 
HELD: The questions (ii), (iii) and (vi) are prima fade substantial 
questions of law which need to be adjudicated. (Para 3011764-Fl 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5835 of2000. 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 05.08.1999 of the High Court F 
). 
of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore in Civl Second Appeal No. 191 
of 1999. 
Nagendra Rai, Sr. Adv., R.K.Singh, Ansul Raj and Sushi! Kumar Jain for 
the Appellant. 
G 
B. Sunita Rao, Sudhir Nandrajog, K.A. Singh, and C.D. Singh for the 
Respondents. 
) 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
~ 
DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. I. Challenge in this appeal is tO the order H 
760 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007) 7 S.C.R. 
A passed by a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court 
-t. 
dismissing the civil appeal filed by the appellant under Section 100 of the 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'CPC' ). The appeal was dismissed 
summarily at the admission stage holding that no· su
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.