SRI Y.P. SUDHANVA REDDY & ORS. versus THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA MILK FEDERATION ETC. on 25 April 2018

[2018] 6 S.C.R. 853

SRI Y.P. SUDHANVA REDDY & ORS.

v.

THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,KARNATAKA MILK FEDERATION ETC.

(Civil Appeal Nos. 4412-4413 of 2018)

APRIL 25, 2018

[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]

Possession – Appellants’ father had filed a suit for permanentinjunction against the respondent in relation to the suit land, whichwas dismissed by the trial Court – After death of their father,appellants again filed a suit against the respondent, which was againdismissed by the trial Court as being barred by limitation but heldthe appellants to be owner of the suit land – Aggrieved appellantsfiled appeal before the High Court – Respondents also filed beforethe High Court a cross objection u/Or.41, r.22 of CPC and anapplication u/Or.41, r.27 of CPC alongwith copy of notificationvide which the State had acquired the suit land, which was allegedlylater allotted to the respondent – High Court dismissed the appealfiled by the appellants and allowed the application u/Or. 41, r.27and cross objection u/Or.41, r.22 filed by the respondent – Proprietyof – On appeal, held: Proper – After issuance of the notificationsunder the Land acquisition Act and initiation of acquisitionproceedings by the State which culminated in passing of the awardas far back as in the year 1941, the appellants’ predecessor-in-title(their father) ceased to be owner of the suit land and lost all hisrights to hold the suit land and claim possession – All ownershiprights of the appellants’ predecessor-in-title in the suit land stoodvested in the State once the acquisition proceedings were completedunder the Act – Documents filed by the respondent fully establishthat neither the appellants’ predecessor and nor the appellants hadany subsisting prima facie title in their favour over the suit land onthe date of filing the two suits – Insofar application u/Or.41,r.27 isconcerned, the first Appellate Court has jurisdiction u/Or. 41, r.27to allow the parties to file additional evidence, if such documentsare required to decide the suit/appeal provided satisfactoryexplanation is given as to why the documents could not be filed in

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

Athe suit and why they are filed in appeal – The respondent, in instantcase, did give the explanation, which rightly found acceptance tothe High Court – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. 41, r.22 andr.27 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.4 and 6.

Dismissing the appeals, the CourtB

HELD: 1. After issuance of the notifications under the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 and initiation of acquisition proceedingsby the State which culminated in passing of the award as far backas in the year 1941, the appellants’ predecessor-in-title ceasedto be the owner of the suit land and lost all his rights to hold theCsuit land and claim possession over it. [Para 21] [858-E]

2.1 Neither the predecessor-in-title of the appellants andnor the appellants had any subsisting right, title and interest inthe suit land on and after 1941 consequent upon issuance of thenotifications by the State under the Act. The reason was that allDthe ownership rights of the appellants’ predecessor-in-title in thesuit land stood vested in the State once the acquisitionproceedings were completed under the Act. The appellants’ onlyright was to either challenge the land acquisition proceedings asbeing against the provisions of Act or to claim compensationpayable under the Act in relation to the suit land under SectionE11 of the Act followed by reference proceedings under Section18 of the Act and lastly, in appeal before the High Court for itsre-determination. [Para 23] [858-G-H; 859-A-B]

2.2 The appellants failed to file any document in rebuttalto the documents filed by the respondent in appeal by way ofFadditional evidence with a view to show that the notificationsissued under the Act for acquiring the suit land, which were reliedon by the respondent in appeal, were either withdrawn or setaside or not given effect to. Such fact, alone would have enabledthe appellants to claim and assert their right of ownership overGthe suit land. Such was, however, not the case of the appellants.[Para 24] [859-C-D]

3. The appellants contended that there was non-complianceof the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC and hence theapplication filed by the respondent ought not to have been allowedby the High Court. The contention of appellants is devoid of anyH

SRI Y.P. SUDHANVA REDDY v. THE CHAIRMAN & MG. DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA MILK FEDERATION

merit. In the first place, the documents sought to be filed by therespondent, namely, notifications issued under the Act wererelevant and also necessary for deciding the rights of the partiesinvolved in the suit/appeal. Second, these documents did notrequire any proof being public documents in nature. Third, therespondent had already made reference of these documents andlaid foundation in the pleadings and lastly, the first Appellate Courthas jurisdiction under Order 41 Rule 27 to allow the parties tofile additional evidence, if such documents are required to decidethe suit/appeal provided satisfactory explanation is given as towhy the documents could not be filed in the suit and why they arefiled in appeal. The respondent, in this case, did give theexplanation, which rightly found acceptance to the High Court.[Paras 27 and 28] [859-F-H; 860-A-C]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4412-4413 of 2018.

From the Judgment and Order dated 16.12.2014 of the High Courtof Karnataka at Bengaluru in Regular First Appeal No. 2096 of 2012c/w Regular First Appeal Crob. No. 27 of 2013.

Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr. Adv., Anil Kumar Mishra-I, Pranjal Kishore,Ankit Dhawan, Sandeep Puggal, Advs. for the Appellants.

S.S. Naganand, Sr. Adv., Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, VenkitaSubramoniam T. R., Ms. Rahat Bansal, Amit A. Pai, GouthamShivshankar, Akash Dixit, Advs. for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are filed against the final judgment and orderdated 16.12.2014 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluruin Regular First Appeal No. 2096 of 2012 C/W RFA. CROB. No. 27 of2013 whereby the High Court dismissed the Regular First Appeal filedby the appellants herein and allowed the CROB. No.27 of 2013 and theapplication filed under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of theCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”)filed by the Respondent and set aside the findings recorded by the TrialCourt on Issue No.1 that the appellants (plaintiffs) are the absolute ownersof the Schedule ‘A’ and “B’ property.

ABC

D

E

F

G

H

A3. In order to appreciate the issue involved in the appeals, fewrelevant facts need to be mentioned infra.

4. The appellants are the plaintiffs whereas the respondent is thedefendant in a civil suit out of which these appeals arise.

5. The disputes in the civil suit out of which these appeals ariserelate to a land bearing Sy. No.2/1, Koramangala Village, Begur Hobli,Bangalore South Taluk measuring 1 acre 27 guntas (hereinafter referredto as “suit land”). It is between the appellants (plaintiffs) and therespondent (defendant) which is a Co-operative Society engaged in thebusiness of manufacturing and selling of Milk.

B

C

6. One Mr. K.G. Yellappa Reddy was the original holder of thesuit land. In the year 1998, K.G. Yellappa Reddy filed a civil suit (OS No.4875/1998) against the respondent for permanent injunction in relationto the suit land. He claimed, inter alia, that he is in possession of the suitland and the respondent is trying to interfere in his possession.

D

7. The suit was, however, dismissed as being not maintainable on17.02.2001 by the Trial Court for want of notice. Mr. K.G. YellappaReddy, in the meantime, died leaving behind the appellants herein as hislegal representatives.

8. On 14.03.2007, the appellants filed another civil suit (No.2143/E2007) against the respondent before the City Civil Judge, Bangalore fora declaration and permanent injunction in relation to the suit land.

9. In the suit, the appellants claimed title through their ancestor(late K.G. Yellappa Reddy) and alleged that the appellants are now theowners of the suit land after the death of Mr. K.G. Yellappa Reddy byFinheritance and the respondent has no right, title and interest in the suitland and nor has any right to interfere in the possession of the appellantsover the suit land.

10. The respondent (defendant) denied the appellants’ claim and,inter alia, alleged in the written statement that they have been inGpossession of the suit land in their own rights. It was alleged that theState Government acquired the suit land a long back for public purposeand allotted the suit land to the respondent for a valuable considerationand since then they are in possession of the suit land in their own rightand carrying on their business.

H

SRI Y.P. SUDHANVA REDDY v. THE CHAIRMAN & MG. DIRECTOR,KARNATAKA MILK FEDERATION [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

11. The respondent also contended that the suit filed by theappellants is barred by the principle of res judicata because of thedismissal of the previous suit filed by their father (Mr. K.G. YellappaReddy) against the respondent in relation to the suit land wherein thesame relief was claimed but was declined to the appellants’ late father.The respondent also raised other legal pleas, such as suit is barred bylimitation, it is neither properly valued and nor proper Court Fees hasbeen paid on the relief claimed etc.

12. The Trial Court, by judgment/decree dated 13.08.2012, thoughdismissed the suit as being barred by limitation but held the appellants tobe the owner of the suit land. In other words, the Trial Court held thatthe appellants were able to prove their ownership over the suit land butdismissed the suit as being barred by limitation. It was also held that therespondents failed to prove their case inasmuch as they failed to file anydocument in support of their stand that the suit land had been acquiredby the State.

13. The appellants felt aggrieved by the dismissal of their caseand filed first appeal in the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore whereasthe respondent felt aggrieved against the finding of ownership recordedagainst them and filed cross objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of Code.The respondent also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of theCode in the appeal and filed copy of the notification issued under Section4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, “the Act”) by the State bywhich the State had acquired the suit land in support of their case.

14. By impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the appealfiled by the appellants, allowed the application filed by the respondentunder Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code and also the cross objection filed bythe respondent and dismissed the appellants’ suit.

15. Against this judgment, the appellants(plaintiffs) felt aggrievedand filed the present appeals by way of special leave in this Court.

16. Heard Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned senior counsel for theappellants and Mr. S.S. Naganand, learned senior counsel for therespondent.

17. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusalof the record of the case, we are constrained to dismiss the appealsfinding no merit therein.

AB

C

DE

F

G

H

A

A18. In our considered opinion, the filing of the two suits, namely,first by the appellants’ father, Mr. K.G. Yellappa Reddy, (O.S.No.4875/1998) and later by the appellants out of which these appeals arise werewholly misconceived in nature and were not maintainable as would beclear from the following reasons.B19. It is not in dispute that once the respondent filed a copy of the B19. It is not in dispute that once the respondent filed a copy of thenotification in appeal before the High Court bearing No.L-5468-MI 10-4-15 dated 22.01.1941 issued under Section 4 of the Act by the StateGovernment, which was taken on record as additional evidence by theHigh Court, showing that the suit land was acquired by the State in theyear 1941, the legal position arising in the case in relation to the suit landCbecame clear.

20. Indeed, as a matter of fact, consequent upon issuance of thenotification under Section 4 of the Act, which was followed by declarationunder Section 6 and then by an award under Section 11 of the Act andlastly, by taking over of the possession of the suit land from the owner ofDthe suit land (appellants’ father) under Section 16 of the Act, the suitland stood vested in the State absolutely free from all encumbrances asprovided under Section 16 of the Act.

21. In other words, on and after issuance of the notifications underthe Act and initiation of acquisition proceedings by the State whichEculminated in passing of the award as far back as in the year 1941, theappellants’ predecessor-in-title ceased to be the owner of the suit landand lost all his rights to hold the suit land and claim possession over it.

22. The only legal remedy available to the appellants’ predecessor-in-title (Mr. K.G.Yellappa Reddy) in such case was to challenge theFlegality and correctness of the notifications issued under Section 4 or/and 6 of the Act and that too within a reasonable time after their issuancein the year 1941. It is not in dispute that the landowners, admittedly, didnot challenge the validity and correctness of the notifications and, on theother hand, by suppressing the fact of acquisition proceedings from theCourt filed two suits one after the other and claimed title over the suitGland.

23. In our considered opinion, neither the predecessor-in-title ofthe appellants and nor the appellants had any subsisting right, title andinterest in the suit land on and after 1941 consequent upon issuance of H

SRI Y.P. SUDHANVA REDDY v. THE CHAIRMAN & MG. DIRECTOR,KARNATAKA MILK FEDERATION [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

the notifications by the State under the Act. The reason was that all theownership rights of the appellants’ predecessor-in-title in the suit landstood vested in the State once the acquisition proceedings were completedunder the Act. As mentioned above, the appellants’ only right was toeither challenge the land acquisition proceedings as being against theprovisions of Act or to claim compensation payable under the Act inrelation to the suit land under Section 11 of the Act followed by referenceproceedings under Section 18 of the Act and lastly, in appeal before theHigh Court for its re-dertermination.

24. We find from the record that the appellants failed to file anydocument in rebuttal to the documents filed by the respondent in appealby way of additional evidence with a view to show that the notificationsissued under the Act for acquiring the suit land, which were relied on bythe respondent in appeal, were either withdrawn or set aside or notgiven effect to. Such fact, in our view, alone would have enabled theappellants to claim and assert their right of ownership over the suit land.Such was, however, not the case of the appellants.

25. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the consideredopinion that the suit filed by the appellants seeking therein a declarationof their title over the suit land and further claiming permanent injunctionwas wholly misconceived and was liable to be dismissed.

26. Indeed, no declaration of title over the suit land could be claimedor/and granted by the Civil Court and nor any suit of such nature couldbe filed in the Civil Court in the light of background facts brought onrecord by the respondent by way of additional evidence in appeal. Thesedocuments fully establish that neither the appellants’ predecessor andnor the appellants had any subsisting prima facie title in their favourover the suit land on the date of filing the two suits.

27. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, argued thatthere was non-compliance of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27-A ofthe Code and hence the application filed by the respondent ought not tohave been allowed by the High Court. The submission, in our opinion,has no merit for the following reasons.

28. In the first place, the documents sought to be filed by therespondent, namely, notifications issued under the Act were relevantand also necessary for deciding the rights of the parties involved in the

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Asuit/appeal. Second, these documents did not require any proof beingpublic documents in nature. Third, the respondent had already madereference of these documents and laid foundation in the pleadings andlastly, the first Appellate Court has jurisdiction under Order 41 Rule 27of the Code to allow the parties to file additional evidence, if suchdocuments are required to decide the suit/appeal provided satisfactoryBexplanation is given as to why the documents could not be filed in thesuit and why they are filed in appeal. The respondent, in this case, didgive the explanation, which found acceptance to the High Court and, inour opinion, rightly.

29. Learned counsel for the appellants (plaintiffs) argued someCissues but they did not impress us in the light of the settled legal positiontaken note of us supra.

30. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we concur with thereasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court and find nomerit in the appeals.D

31. The appeals thus fail and are accordingly dismissed.

Ankit Gyan

Appeals dismissed.

E

F

G

H