- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Zaminder Dharmik & Shekshnik Nyas v. Siddhanath (Dead) By Lrs.
Factual and Procedural Background
The dispute concerns 3.23 acres of land originally belonging to the ancestors of Rao Nihal Karan Jamindara Bada Ravala of Indore, later forming part of a religious and educational trust for which the present appellants act as trustees. The land has been used for annual Dussehra puja since before Indian independence.
In 1969 the State issued an ejectment notice under Section 248 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, dispossessing the trustees. On an application under Section 57 of the Code, the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) on 19-9-1974 declared the appellant to be bhumiswami of the land and ordered restoration of possession. A series of administrative appeals and revisions filed by the respondent’s father, Siddhanath, were dismissed up to the Board of Revenue on 26-8-1982.
Siddhanath then filed Civil Suit No. 259A/1981 seeking declaration and injunction; it was dismissed on 17-8-1983 under Order 11 Rule 21 CPC for non-compliance with discovery. Without disclosing that suit, he filed the present suit claiming title by adverse possession against the State alone. The appellant trust was later added as Defendant 3. The trial court decreed the suit on 31-1-1997; the Additional District Judge dismissed the appellant’s first appeal on 30-1-1999. A second appeal under Section 100 CPC was summarily dismissed by a Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at the admission stage, holding that no substantial question of law arose. The present Supreme Court appeal challenges that dismissal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court erred in holding that no substantial question of law arose in the second appeal filed under Section 100 CPC.
- Specifically, whether the following constitute substantial questions of law:
- Whether the plaintiff’s claim could be decreed without challenging the revenue authorities’ decision restoring possession to the appellant (Question ii in the memorandum).
- Whether the courts below were correct in accepting the plaintiff’s claim of possession in his own right or by adverse possession (Question iii).
- Whether the present suit was maintainable in view of the dismissal of the earlier Suit No. 359/1981 under Order 11 Rule 21 CPC (Question vi).
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- Multiple substantial questions of law were involved and should have been framed and addressed by the High Court.
Respondent's Arguments
- No substantial question of law arose from the case; therefore, the High Court correctly dismissed the second appeal at the admission stage.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court examined the six questions proposed in the memorandum of appeal before the High Court. It concluded that Questions (ii), (iii) and (vi) are, prima facie, substantial questions of law within the meaning of Section 100 CPC. The Court noted that:
- Question (ii) challenges whether the civil court could decree the respondent’s title without first addressing the binding revenue decisions that had restored possession to the appellant.
- Question (iii) pertains to the legal standards for establishing possession in one’s own right or by adverse possession, a matter of mixed fact and law that can constitute a substantial question when misapplied.
- Question (vi) concerns the effect of an earlier suit’s dismissal under Order 11 Rule 21 CPC on the maintainability of a subsequent suit—an issue that directly invokes statutory interpretation and procedural law.
Given these considerations, the Supreme Court found the High Court’s summary dismissal to be unwarranted. It therefore set aside that order and remitted the matter to the High Court for a merits hearing limited to the identified substantial questions of law. The Court clarified that the High Court remains free to decide the appeal in accordance with law after such hearing.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The appeal is allowed; the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order dismissing the second appeal is set aside. The case is remitted to the High Court to hear the second appeal on Questions (ii), (iii) and (vi) as identified.
Implications: The parties will receive a full appellate hearing on the identified legal questions. No costs were awarded. The Supreme Court did not establish new precedent on the substantive property issues; its ruling is confined to enforcing the requirement that substantial questions of law be properly identified and adjudicated under Section 100 CPC.
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.— Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing the civil appeal filed by the appellant under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short “CPC”). The appeal was dismissed summarily at the admission stage holding that no substantial question of law is involved.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that several questions of law are involved.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that there is no substantial question of law involved.
4. Background facts in a nutshell as projected by the appellant are as follows:
The present case relates to a land measuring 3.23 acres belonging to the ancestors of Rao Nihal Karan Jamindara Bada Ravala of Indore and later on was a part of a religious and educational trust. The appellants are its trustees. The land in dispute is an important place where the appellant Trust is carrying out annual Dussehra puja even prior to independence. The Zamindar family used to perform puja from generation to generation. There was no dispute whatsoever raised about the said land up to 1969. The respondent was merely a vegetable seller who used to collect vegetables and fruits from the land on contract from the Trust.
5. In 1969, the Government issued a notice for ejectment under Section 248 of the M.P Land Revenue Code (in short “the Code”) claiming the land to be a land of the Government and the appellant was dispossessed.
6. The panchnama dated 12-6-1975 shows that the land in dispute was handed over to the Government by none else than the father of the respondent herein i.e the original plaintiff Siddhanath.
7. An application for adjudication of right and title of the appellant was made before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Indore, who was a competent authority under Section 57 of the Code.
8. Section 57 of the M.P Land Revenue Code reads as under:
“57. State ownership in all lands.—(1) All lands belong to the State Government and it is hereby declared that all such lands, including standing and flowing water, mines, quarries, minerals and forests reserved or not, and all rights in the subsoil of any land are the property of the State Government:
Provided that nothing in this section shall, save as otherwise provided in this Code, be deemed to affect any rights of any person subsisting at the coming into force of this Code in any such property.
(2) Where a dispute arises between the State Government and any person in respect of any right under sub-section (1) such dispute shall be decided by the Sub-Divisional Officer.
(3) Any person aggrieved by any order passed under sub-section (2) may institute a civil suit to contest the validity of the order within a period of one year from the date of such order.
(3-a)(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) no civil court shall, in a suit instituted under sub-section (3) on or after 24th October, 1983, by order of temporary injunction disturb the person to whom possession is restored under Section 250 if such person furnishes a reliable surety to recompensate the aggrieved party against any loss in case the civil court grants a decree in favour of the aggrieved party:
Provided that no surety shall be required to be furnished by a member of a tribe declared to be an aboriginal tribe under sub-section (6) of Section 165.
(b) Where a civil court by an order of temporary injunction disturbed the person referred to in clause (a) on or after 24th October, 1983 but before the publication of Revenue Department's Notification No. 1-70-VII-N-2-83 dated 4th January, 1984 such order shall abate on such publication and the Tahsildar shall restore possession to a person who is disturbed by such order.
(4) Where a civil suit has been instituted under sub-section (3) against any order such order shall not be subject to appeal or revision.”
9. The Sub-Divisional Officer decided the title and declared the appellant as bhumiswami of the land in dispute and also held that the land was being used for Dussehra puja by the appellant.
10. In pursuance of the application for restoration of possession in view of the aforesaid order dated 19-9-1974, the Tahsildar ordered restoration of possession to the appellant. In pursuance of the said order of the Tahsildar, the Patwari went to the spot and made a report that the place was in possession of the plaintiff-respondent's father Shri Siddhanath. The appellant, therefore, applied for an order before the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar on the one hand passed an order seeking clarification from the Board of Revenue about the area of the land and at the same time served a copy of the appellant's application to Shri Siddhanath, father of the respondent.
11. Siddhanath filed an appeal challenging the order dated 19-9-1974 which was dismissed.
12. Aggrieved by the order of the Collector, Siddhanath, father of the respondent filed a revision before the Commissioner (Land Revenue) which was also dismissed on the ground of limitation.
13. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, Siddhanath, father of the respondent filed revision before the Board of Revenue.
14. The Board of Revenue, vide its order dated 26-8-1982 also dismissed the said revision filed by the father of the respondent.
15. Siddhanath, father of the respondent, in the meanwhile filed Civil Suit No. 259A of 1981 for declaration of title and for injunction against the appellant and Rao Nihal Karan much after the expiry of one year from the date of order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 19-9-1974. The suit was thus barred under Section 57(3) of the M.P Land Revenue Code, 1959 (in short “the Code”). However, in the said suit the appellant filed an application for discovery of documents. The father of the respondent did not file the said documents and the said suit was dismissed on 17-8-1983 under Order 11 Rule 21 CPC. Order 11 Rule 21 CPC reads as under:
“ORDER 11
Discovery and Inspection
21. Non-compliance with order for discovery.—(1) Where any party fails to comply with any order to answer interrogatories, or for discovery or inspection of documents, he shall, if a plaintiff, be liable to have his suit dismissed for want of prosecution, and, if a defendant, to have his defence, if any, struck out, and to be placed in the same position as if he had not defended, and the party interrogating or seeking discovery or inspection may apply to the court for an order to that effect, and an order may be made on such application accordingly, after notice to the parties and after giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
(2) Where an order is made under sub-rule (1) dismissing any suit, the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit on the same cause of action.”
16. No further appeal or revision or any other proceedings against the said order were opted and thus this decision became final under Section 57 of the Code.
17. Siddhanath, father of the respondent, not deterred by previous orders, filed present suit without making the appellant or Rao Nihal Karan as a party to the said suit. In the said suit Siddhanath claimed adverse possession against the State of M.P as will be evident from Para 8 of the plaint. The respondent concealed the institution of his previous suit dated 21-12-1981 as well as the order of its dismissal dated 17-8-1983.
18. The appellant herein who was not made a party, applied for being made a party which was allowed and the appellant was arrayed as Defendant 3.
19. The State authorities in collusion with the respondent filed written statement and admitted that the respondent was in possession since 1950.
20. As the appellant is a religious and charitable trust, the trustees could not collect the relevant documents of the ancestors of Jamindara Bada Ravala nor could timely lead the evidence. However, the appellant filed some documents and memo of appeal presented by Siddhanath which was allowed to be taken on record.
21. Thereafter the appellant filed an application under Order 13 Rule 10 for proving the memo of appeals filed against the order dated 19-9-1974 in which the respondent specifically took the plea that he was in possession on behalf of the appellant.
22. The trial court rejected the said application.
23. The appellant also filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 for amendment of the written statement for inserting very important facts including the fact that the dismissal order dated 17-8-1983 of the previous suit makes the present suit as not maintainable. The same was also rejected.
24. The trial court vide judgment and order decreed the said suit on 31-1-1997.
25. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the appellant herein filed first appeal before the Additional District Judge, being First Appeal No. 3 of 1997.
26. The IIIrd Additional District Judge, Indore vide his order dismissed the first appeal on 30-1-1999.
27. Second appeal was filed which as noted above was dismissed.
28. In the memorandum of appeal following questions were formulated by the appellant:
(i) Whether the learned courts below have not erred in decreeing the plaintiff-respondent's suit?
(ii) Whether the plaintiff's 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 learned courts below are right in accepting the plaintiff's claim of possession in his own right or adverse possession?
(iv) Whether the learned first appellate court was right in rejecting the applications, IA No. 5 and IA No. 6?
(v) Whether the decisions are rendered by wrongly placing burden of proof on the appellant?
(vi) Whether the suit of the plaintiff was maintainable in view of the dismissal under Order 11 Rule 21 of his earlier Suit No. 359 of 1981?
29. In our considered view Questions (ii), (iii) and (vi) are prima facie substantial questions of law which need to be adjudicated. Accordingly we set aside the order of the High Court and remit the matter to it for hearing the second appeal on Questions (ii), (iii) and (vi) as quoted above. We make it clear that though prima facie these appear to be substantial questions of law, the High Court shall be free to decide the matter in accordance with law.
30. Appeal is allowed without any orders as to costs.
Alert