LexZARIF AHMAD (D} THROUGH LRS. & ANOTHER versus MOHD. FAROOQ
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 779 ZARIF AHMAD (D} THROUGH LRS. & ANOTHER v. MOHD. FAROOQ (Civil Appeal No. 666 of 2015) JANUARY 27, 2015 [DIPAK MISRA AND .PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: A B s.107 - Power of remand and when the case be not c remanded - Discussed. Or. 7, r. 3 - Description of immovable property - Suit for permanent injunction - Contested by defendants on the ground that suit plot belonged to them - Suit decreed - Decree challenged on the ground that plot was not identifiable D in the suit - Held: Plot was described in the suit with its boundaries and municipal numbers, therefore, it cannot be said that plot was not identifiable - Since the suit was for relief of permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of the plot which was described with boundaries and its municipal number, it E cannot be said that the decree passed by the trial court was un-executable - The documentary evidence sufficiently proved that plaintiff was in possession over the suit plot and for several years was paying the house tax on the basis of house tax receipts and extracts of house tax Assessment F Register - Trial court rightly decreed the suit. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. At the end of the plaint, plaintiff has not only given the boundaries of the plot but also mentioned G Nagar Panchayat (Town Area/Municipal) number of the plot. There is no force in the argument of the defendants that the land in suit is not identifiable. Had the land in question been non identifiable, the Advocate 779 H 780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 1 S.C.R. A Commissioner would not have given the report, relied by the defendants after inspection of the plot in question. The plea for the defendants was that no length and width of the land in question was mentioned in the plaint and as such, the decree passed by the trial co'urt was liable B to be set-aside as the decree could not have been executed. Had it been a case of mandatory injunction requiring restoration of possession of land to the plaintiff or demolition of the construction raised by the defendants, what the defendants have pleaded could C have been accepted but the present suit is for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of the land which is described with boundaries and its municipal number. Therefore, it cannot be said that the decree passed by the trial court is un-executable. [Paras 8 to 10) D [784-G; 785-A-E] 2. Order VII Rule 3, CPC pertains to the requirement of description of immovable property. The object of the said provision is that the description of the property must be sufficient to identify it. The property can be identifiable E by boundaries, or by number in a public record of settlement or survey. Even by plaint map showing the location of the disputed immovable property, it can be described. Since in the present case, the suit property was described by the plaintiff in the plaint not only by the F boundaries but also by the municipal number, and by giving its description in the plaint map, therefore it cannot be said that the suit property was not identifiable in the present case. There was no need on the part of first appellate court to remit the matter to the trial court to allow G the parties to adduce evidence on the additional issue as neither issue on identifiability of land arises from the pleadings nor the evidence was lacking on record. [Paras 11 and 12) [785-F; 786-A-B, D-E] 3. Section 107 of C.P.C. empowers the appellate H ZARIF AHMAD (D) THROUGH LRS. v. MOHD. 781 FAROOQ court to remand a case, but it simultaneously empowers A the appellate court to take additional evidence or to require such evidence to be taken. Rule 24 of Order XU C.P.C. provides that where evidence on record is sufficient, appellate court may determine the case finally. It is not a healthy practice to remand a case to trial court unless it is necessary to do so as it makes the parties to wait for the final decision of a case for the period which is avoidable. Only in rare situations, a case should be remanded e.g. when the trial court has disposed of a suit on a preliminary issue without recording evidence and giving its decision on the rest of the issues, but it is not so in the present case. The documentary evidence on record sufficiently proved that plaintiff was in possession over plot no. 358, and for several years he was paying the house tax as
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.