Kshitish
Chandra Purkait Vs. Santosh Kumar Purkait & Ors [1997] INSC 518 (7 May 1997)
A. S.
ANAND, S. P. BHARUCHA, K. S. PARIPOORNAN
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
Present:
Hon'ble
Dr. Justice A.S. Anand Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.P. Bharucha Hon'ble Mr. Justice
K.S. Paripoornan P.K. Chatterjee, Dr. Shankar Ghosh, Sr. Advs., Abhijeet Chatterjee,
Ranjan Mukherjee, Sukumar Ghose, Girish Chandra, Rathin Das, D.P. Mukherjee,
Advs. with them for the appearing parties.
The
following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
PARIPOORNAN,
J.
The
plaintiff in title suit No. 89 of 1958, Munsif 1st Court, Diamond Harbour, is the appellant. The defendants in the suit are the
respondents. The suit was filed for declaration of plaintiff's title and
recovery of possession of the suit land (1.80 acre of land of Mouja Durganagar P.S.
Diamond Harbour). Incidentally, there was a prayer for declaration that the
entries in the R.S. record are erroneous. The Plaint-property originally
belonged to Haran Chandra Halader and Barada Prasad Halder, and by various
gifts or other documents, Kshirodamani Dasi Became the full owner of the suit
property. The plaintiff purchased the suit property from Kshirodamani Dasi by
registered Deed dated 12 Baisakh, 1365. The plaintiff's vendor had sole
occupancy right in 1.80 acres of land in Mauja Durganagar. She possessed such
land during the material period through the 4th defendant with whom the land
was settled annually on advance rent. On 30th June, 1954, the principle defendants
(defendants Nos. 1 and 2) trespassed into the suit land and dispossessed the
4th defendant. Subsequently, the trespassers got their names recorded as Korfa
tenants of the suit land at different fictitious jamas under Kshirodamani, the
plaintiff's vendor, in the R.S. record. The Plaintiff's vendor Kshirodamani
never settled the suit land by granting Patta to or accepting any Kabuliyat
from such trespassers.
On
these and other averments the suit was filed for declaration of plaintiff's
title to the suit property and for recovery of the same from the defendants.
2. The
main contesting defendants are defendant Nos. 1 and
2.
They put forward the plea that the suit was not maintainable, that they were
cultivating tenants as thika tenants, under the plaintiff's vender on payment
of advance rent and the land was settled with them on a permanent basis. The
third defendant is the State of West Bengal. The State pleaded that the suit was not maintainable and
they have been unnecessarily impleaded. The trial court decreed the suit. It
was found that the plaintiff has title to the suit land and the defendants have
no tenancy right in the property. The plaintiff was held entitled to recover
possession with mesne profits. The suit was decreed on 28.2.1961. In the appeal
filed by defendant No. 1 in Title Appeal No. 362 of 1961 before the
Sub-ordinate Judge, 8th
Court, Alipore, the
judgment and decree of the Munsif was set aside and the suit was dismissed. The
plaintiff filed S.A. 993/62 and assailed the judgment and decree of the Sub-
ordinate Judge rendered in Title Appeal No. 362/61. By judgment and decree
dated 26.2.1976, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted to the
lower appellate court for a fresh disposal, in accordance with law. After
remit, Title Appeal No. 362/61 was disposed of by Sub-Ordinate Judge, 8th Court, Alipore on 12.2.1977 . The appeal
was dismissed, affirming the judgment and decree of the trial court dated
28.2.1961 except regarding the grant of declaration that the R.S. record of raiyat
is incorrect. The defendants assailed the concurrent judgments and decrees of
the courts below by filing Second Appeal No. 871/81 before the High Court of
Calcutta. The plaintiff filed a memoranda of cross- objections in the said
Second Appeal against the deletion of the declaration that the R.S. record
regarding the suit land is incorrect. The Second Appeal and the Memoranda of
Cross objection were disposed of by a learned single Judge of the Calcutta High
Court by his judgment dated 30.11.1982. The High Court allowed the Second
Appeal filed by the contesting defendants and held that the suit for recovery
of possession of the disputed land, i.e, the suit land, is not maintainable and
the suit obtained and the suit was dismissed. It is thereafter, the plaintiff
in the suit obtained special leave in S.L.P.(Civil) No. 10083/83 by order
passed by this Court dated 4.11.1986 and the consequent Civil Appeal is before
us.
3. We
heard counsel. It is evident from the judgment of the High Court impugned
herein, that the High Court set aside the concurrent judgments and decrees of
the lower courts on the basis of a new plea raised before it.
Appellant's
counsel submitted that the High Court acted illegally and committed an error of
jurisdiction in entertaining a new plea in Second Appeal, without complying
with the provisions of Section 100 C.P.C. as amended.
Counsel
for the respondents submitted that the new plea raised before the High Court
was a question of law and the Court acted within its jurisdiction in
entertaining the said question of law and in disposing of the Second Appeal on
that basis.
4. In
order to appreciate the rival pleas urged before us regarding the legality and
propriety of the disposal of the Second appeal by the High Court, few broad
facts of the case should be borne in mind. As stated, the suit was one for
declaration of title and for recovery of possession of the suit property. The
plaintiff in the suit possessed the land through the 4th defendant with whom
the land was settled annually. The contesting (principle) defendants trespassed
into the suit land and dispossessed the 4th defendant on 30.6.1954. The West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act. 1953,
hereinafter referred to as `the Act' came into force on 10.4.1956. The trial
court decreed the plaintiff suit. It was also found that the defendants failed
to establish their case, that they took settlement of the land in the suit from
the plaintiff's vendor, Kshirodamani. Kshirodamani was found to be in
possession of the suit land. The decree so passed by the trial court was
affirmed in appeal by the learned Sub-ordinate Judge who also held that the
defendants failed to prove their tenancy raiyats in the suit land and the first
defendant never possessed the suit land in the previous years, as alleged. The
Courts concurrently found that the suit is not maintainable and the State is an
unnecessary party to the suit. But, in Second Appeal the contesting defendants
raised a new plea. It was to the effect that the Act came into force on
10.4.1956. on that day, the right and interest of the plaintiff which was only
as and occupancy raiyat, vested in the State. On the date of vesting neither
the plaintiff's vendor nor the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land.
Since the plaintiff's vendor, as occupancy raiyat, was a deemed intermediary
under Section 52 of the Act and she was not n possession of the suit land.
Since the plaintiff's vendor nor the plaintiff was in possession of the suit
land. Since the plaintiff's vendor, as occupancy raiyat, was a deemed
intermediary under Section 52 of the Act and she was not in possession of the
suit land on the date of vesting, i.e., 10.4.1956, her interest in the suit
property vested in the State of West Bengal. So, neither the plaintiff's vendor nor the plaintiff was
entitle to retain the property under Section 6(1)(d) of the Act and, therefore,
the suit for recovery of possession of such land is not maintainable.
Admittedly, this was a new plea which was never raised by the defendants at any
stage of the suit. It should be remembered that the State of West Bengal, the 3rd defendant in the suit,
never urged a plea that the interest of Kshirodamani in the suit land
(plaintiff's vendor) vested in the State Government under the provisions of the
Act.
5.
Before the High Court the only point urged on behalf of the defendant (appellant)
was, since the plaintiff's vender, an occupancy raiyat and deemed intermediary
under section 52 of the Act, was not in possession of the suit land on the date
of vesting, her interest in the suit land vested in the State and the plaintiff
was not entitled to maintain the suit. it appears that the plaintiff,
respondent in the Second appeal, submitted before the Court that this new plea
raised on behalf of the defendants, was never raised in the pleadings or at any
prior stage of the proceedings and the Second Appeal was the 5th hearing of the
suit and such a plea raised only at the time of hearing, cannot be permitted to
be raised. The learned Judge of the Calcutta High Court adverted to the above
aspect and has opined thus:- "......... the plea of non- maintainability
of the suit is essentially a legal plea and if the suit on the face of it is
not maintainable, the fact that no specific plea was taken or no precise issues
were framed is of little consequence. In the present case the suit on the face
of it appears to be not maintainable in law and therefore, the point raised on
behalf of the appellants although it was not agitated in any of the two court
below should in my view, be entertained. I am unable to accept the submissions
made on behalf of the respondent that the said point of law cannot be canvassed
for the first time before this Court by the appellants." (emphasis
supplied) Holding that on the date of vesting the plaintiff's vendor was not in
possession of the suit land and the defendants trespassed in the suit land and
dispossessed the fourth defendant much earlier on 30th June, 1954 and so,
Section 6(1)(d) of the Act does not apply, the learned single Judge held that
the present suit for recovery of possession of the suit land is not maintainable
and dismissed the suit. it is not discernible from the records, whether the
High Court, at any stage, formulated any "substantial question of
law" involved in the appeal; nor does it appear that the opposite side had
any notice thereof or otherwise aware of it.
6. We
are of that view that the learned Judge of the Calcutta High Court totally
overlooked the mandatory provisions of Section 100 C.P.C as amended by Act 104
of 1976.
Prior
to the amendment a second appeal could lie to the High Court on the grounds set
out in Clauses (a) to (c) of Section 100(1), namely:
(a) the
decision being contrary to law or to some usage having the force of law;
(b) the
decision having failed to determine some material issue of law or usage having
the force of law;
(c) a
substantial error or defect in the procedure provided by this Code or by any
other law for the time being in force, which may possibly have produced error
or defect in the decision of the case upon the merits.
However,
by the amendment Act of 1976, vital change was introduced by the legislature in
Section 100 C.P.C. The amended Section (100 C.P.C.) reads thus;
"100
(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any
other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the High Court
from every decree passed in appeal by any Court from every decree passed in
appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court, if the High court is
satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law.
(2) An
appeal may lie under this section from and appellate decree passed ex parte.
(3) In
an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state
the substantial question of law involved in the appeal.
(4)
Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is
involved in any case, it shall formulate that question.
(5)
The appeal shall be heard on the question so formulated and the respondent
shall, at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does not
involve such question :
Provided
that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to take away or abridge the
power of the Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other
substantial question of law, not formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the
case involves such questions." (emphasis supplied) The Amendment Act of
1976 has drastically restricted the scope of second appeals and the
jurisdiction of the Court to entertain second appeals is hedged in by
limitations.
7.
Delivering the judgment of a two member Bench in (Civil Appeal No. 3631/930 one
of us (Dr. Anand, J.) in his judgment dated 12.2.1997 has lucidly explained the
scope of Section 100 C.P.C. as amended, thus:- "A bare look at Section 100
C.P.C.
shows
that the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a second appeal after the
1976 amendment is confined is confined only to such appeals as involve a
substantial question of law, specifically set out in the memorandum of appeal
and formulated by the High Court. Of course, the proviso to the Section shows that
nothing shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the Court to hear,
for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of
law, not formulated by it, if the Court is satisfied that the case involves
such a question. The proviso presupposes that the court shall indicate in its
order the substantial question of law which it proposes to decide even if such
substantial question of law was not earlier formulated by it. The existence of
a "substantial question of law" is thus, the sine- qua-non for the
exercise of the jurisdiction under the amended provisions of Section 100 C.P.C.
Generally
speaking, an appellant is not to be allowed to set up a new case in second
appeal or raise a new issue (otherwise than a jurisdictional one), not
supported by the pleadings or evidence on the record and unless the appeal
involves a substantial question of law, a second appeal shall not lie to the
High Court under the amended provisions. In the present case, no such question
of law was formulated in the memorandum of appeal in the High Court and grounds
(6) and (7) in the memorandum of the second appeal only which reliance is
placed did not formulate any substantial question of law. The learned single
Judge of the High Court also, as it transpires from a perusal of the judgment
under appeal, did not formulate any substantial question of law in the appeal
and dealt with the second appeal, not on any substantial question of law, but
treating it as if it was a first appeal, as of right, against the judgment and
decree of the subordinate Court. The intendment of the legislature in amending
Section 100 C.P.C. was, thus, respected in its breach. Both the trial court and
the lower appellate court had decided the cases only on questions of fact, on
the basis of the pleading and the evidence led by the parties before the Trial
Court. No pure question of law nor even a mixed question of law and fact was
urged before the Trial Court or the First Appellate Court by the respondent.
The High Court was, therefore, not justified in entertaining the second appeal
on an altogether new point, neither pleaded nor canvassed in the subordinate
courts and that too by overlooking the changes brought about in Section 100
C.P.C. by the Amendment Act of 1976 without even indicating that substantial
question of law was required to be resolved in they second appeal. To say the
least, the approach of the High Court was not proper. It is the obligation of
the courts of law to further the clear intendments legislature and not for frustrate
it by ignoring the same. " (emphasis supplied) The above statement of law
has our respectful concurrence.
We
would only add that (a) it is the duty cast upon the High Court to formulate
the substantial question of law involved in the case even at the initial stage;
and (b) that in (exceptional) cases, at a later point of time, when the Court
exercised its jurisdiction under the proviso to sub- section (5) of Section 100
C.P.C in formulating the substantial question of law, the opposite party should
be put on notice thereon and should be given a fair or proper opportunity to
meet the point. Proceeding to hear the appeal without formulating the
substantial question of law involved in the appeal is illegal and is an
abnegation of abdication of the duty cast on Court and even after the
formulation of the substantial question of law, if a fair or proper opportunity
is not afforded to the opposite side, it will amount to denial of natural
justice. The above parameters within which the High Court has exercise its
jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C should always be borne in mind. We are
sorry to state that the above aspect are seldom borne in mind in may case and
second appeals are entertained and/or disposed of without conforming to the
above discipline.
The
guidelines to determine as to what is a "substantial question of law"
within the meaning of Section 100 C.P.C., have been laid down by this Court in
a Constitution Bench decision in Sir Chunilal V. Mehta and [AIR 1962 SC 1314 =
(1962) Supp. (3) SCR 549]. There is also a later decision of this Court in Mahindra
and Mahindra It is unnecessary to deal at length with that aspect any further.
8. In
the light of the legal position stated above we are of the view that the High
Court acted illegally and in excess of jurisdiction in entertaining the new
plea, as it did, and consequently in allowing the Second Appeal. Even according
to the High Court the point urged on behalf of the appellant was only a
"legal plea" thought no specific plea was taken or no precise issue
were framed in that behalf.
The
High Court failed to bear in mind that it is not every question of law that
could be permitted to be raised in second appeal. The parameters within which a
new legal plea could be permitted to be raised are specifically stated in
sub-section (5) of Section 100 C.P.C Under the proviso, the Court should be
"satisfied" that the case involves a "substantial question of
law" and not mere "question of law". The reason for permitted
the substantial question of law to be raised, should be "recorded" by
the Court. It is implicit therefrom, that on compliance of the above, the
opposite party should be afforded a fair or properly opportunity to meet the
same. It is not any legal plea that could be raised at the stage of second appeal.
It should be a substantial question of law. The reasons for permitting the plea
to be raised should also be recorded. Thereafter, the opposite party should be
given a fair or proper opportunity to meet the same. In the present case, as
the extracts from the judgment quoted hereinabove would show, the High Court
has totally ignored the mandatory provisions of Section 100 C.P.C. The High
Court proceeded to entertain the new plea and rendered it decision without
following the mandatory provision of Section 100 C.P.C. On this short ground we
are of the view that judgment and decree of the High Court dated 30th November, 1982 are illegal and in excess of
jurisdiction and so unsustainable and deserve to be set aside. We hereby do so.
The appeal is allowed with cost, including advocates fee which we estimate at Rs.10,000/-.
Back