Supreme Court of India
UMA PANDEY & ANR. versus MUNNA PANDEY & ORS. on 9 April 2018
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Issues
[2018] 3 S.C.R. 1056
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
A
UMA PANDEY & ANR.
v.
MUNNA PANDEY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3657 of 2018)
BAPRIL 09, 2018
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.100 – Second appealinvolving substantial question of law, dismissed in limine – Proprietyof – Appellants-plaintiffs filed suit against respondents-defendantsCfor partition and separate possession of the suit land – Suit decreedby Trial Court – Order set aside by First Appellate Court – Secondappeal filed by appellant dismissed by High Court – Held: HighCourt erred in dismissing the second appeal in limine on the groundthat it did not involve any substantial question(s) of law – DocumentD(Ex-A) filed by respondents was relied on by the Courts below fordeciding the rights of the parties – Interpretation of any documentincluding its contents or its admissibility in evidence or its effect onthe rights of the parties to the lis constitutes a substantial question(s)of law within the meaning of s.100 – Appeal did involve substantialquestion(s) of law within the meaning of s.100 and, therefore, itEshould have been admitted for final hearing on the substantialquestion(s) of law arising in the case – Impugned judgment set aside– Appeal remanded to High Court for decision on merits on thesubstantial questions of law framed.
Allowing the appeal, the CourtF
HELD: 1.1 The High Court erred in dismissing the secondappeal in limine on the ground that it did not involve anysubstantial question(s) of law. The appeal did involve substantialquestion(s) of law within the meaning of Section 100, CPC and,therefore, it should have been admitted for final hearing on theGsubstantial question(s) of law arising in the case. It is not in disputethat the defendants (respondents) filed one document (EX-A)-(Annexure-P-1 of SLP). This document was relied on andappreciated by the two Courts below for deciding the rights of the parties. The Trial Court decreed the suit and the FirstAppellate Court reversed it on appreciating the evidenceincluding EX-A. It is a settled principle of law that interpretationof any document including its contents or its admissibility inevidence or its effect on the rights of the parties to the Lisconstitutes a substantial question(s) of law within the meaning ofSection 100, CPC. [Paras 12-15][1059-D-G]
1.2 Whenever such question arises in the second appeal atthe instance of the appellant, it deserves admission on framingappropriate substantial question(s) on such questions to enablethe High Court to decide the appeal on merits bi-party.[Para16][1059-H]
1.3 The following substantial questions of law arise in thesecond appeal.
1. Whether findings recorded by the first Appellate courton Ex-A for allowing the defendants’ first appeal and, inconsequence, reversing the judgment/decree of the trial court islegally and factually sustainable?
2. What is the true nature of Ex-A? Can it be termed as“partition deed” or a document recognizing a factum of partitionalready effected between the parties in relation to the suit land?
3. Whether Ex-A binds the plaintiff’s and, if so, how and towhat extent?
4. Whether Ex-A requires registration and, if so, its effect?
5. Since Ex-A was exhibited in evidence without anyobjection, whether any objection about its admissibility or legalitycan now be raised by the appellants in second appeal and, if so,its effect? [Para 20][1060-C-F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3657of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.07.2014 of the High Courtof Judicature at Patna in S. A. No. 255 of 2008.
Manan Kr. Mishra, Sr. Adv., Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, BrahmaKr. Pathak, Ms. Anjul Dwivedi, Advs. for the Appellants.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1058SUPREME COURT REPORTS
AThe Judgment of the Court was delivered byABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs against the final judgmentand order dated 16.07.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature atPatna in Second Appeal No.255 of 2008 whereby the High CourtBdismissed the second appeal filed by the appellants herein in limine andaffirmed the judgment/decree dated 14.07.2008 passed by the 1[st]Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gopalganj in Title Appeal No. 77/2005/06 of 2007 which arose out of the judgment dated 12.07.2005 anddecree dated 23.07.2005 passed by the Sub-Judge-V, Gopalganj in TitleCSuit No. 21 of 1993.
3. The issue involved in the appeal lies in a narrow compass soalso the facts involved in the appeal are short. They are stated hereinbelowto appreciate the issue.
4. The appellants are the plaintiffs whereas the respondents areDthe defendants in a civil suit out of which this appeal arises.
5. The appellants and the respondents are members of one familyand are related to one another.
6. The appellants filed a civil suit being Title Suit No.21/1993 againstthe respondents in the Court of Sub-Judge V, Gopalganj claiming partitionEand separate possession of agriculture lands as detailed in the scheduleappended to the plaint.
7. According to the appellants, the lands were ancestral in thehands of the parties to the suit and being members of family, they wereentitled to claim their share in the suit lands qua the respondentsF(defendants). It was, inter alia, on this assertion the appellants filed asuit for partition and separate possession of the suit land of their separateshares against the respondents (defendants).
8. The respondents contested the suit and denied the appellants’claim in the written statement on several grounds on facts and in law.GParties went to trial. The issues were framed. Documents were filedand oral evidence was adduced.
9. The Trial Court decreed the appellants’ suit. The respondents(defendants) felt aggrieved and filed first appeal. The First AppellateCourt allowed the defendants’ appeal and dismissed the appellants’ suit.H
The appellants felt aggrieved and filed second appeal before the HighCourt. By impugned Judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal inlimine. The High Court held that the second appeal filed by the appellants(plaintiffs) did not involve any substantial question(s) of law and hence itwas liable to be dismissed in limine. It is against this judgment, theplaintiffs felt aggrieved and filed the present appeal by way of specialleave in this Court.
10. Heard Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, learned senior counsel forthe appellants. Despite notice, no one appeared on behalf of respondents.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and onperusal of the record of the case, we are constrained to allow the appeal,set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and remand the caseto the High Court for deciding the second appeal filed by the plaintiffs(appellants herein) afresh on merits on the substantial questions of lawframed by this Court hereinbelow.
12. In our considered opinion, the High Court erred in dismissingthe second appeal in limine on the ground that it did not involve anysubstantial question(s) of law.
13. In our view, the appeal did involve substantial question(s) oflaw within the meaning of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) and, therefore, it shouldhave been admitted for final hearing on the substantial question(s) oflaw arising in the case.
14. It is not in dispute that the defendants (respondents) filed onedocument(EX-A)-(Annexure-P-1 of SLP). This document was reliedon and appreciated by the two Courts below for deciding the rights ofthe parties. The Trial Court decreed the suit and the First AppellateCourt reversed it on appreciating the evidence including EX-A.
15. It is a settled principle of law that interpretation of any documentincluding its contents or its admissibility in evidence or its effect on therights of the parties to the Lis constitutes a substantial question(s) of lawwithin the meaning of Section 100 of the Code.
16. Whenever such question arises in the second appeal at theinstance of the appellant, it deserves admission on framing appropriatesubstantial question(s) on such questions to enable the High Court todecide the appeal on merits bi-party.
AB
C
DE
F
G
H
A17. In this case, it was all the more reason for the High Court tohave admitted the appellants’ second appeal because the Trial Courtand the First Appellate Court had taken into consideration the document- Ex-A for deciding the Lis involved in the case.
18. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we cannot concur withBthe reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court as, in ourview, it wrongly dismissed appellants’ second appeal in limine.
19. In other words, what the High Court ought to have done at thetime of hearing the second appeal on the question of admission by framingsubstantial question(s) of law arising in the case, the said exercise nowCwe have to do it while disposing of this appeal.
20. In our view, the following substantial questions of law arise inthe second appeal within the meaning of Section 100 of the Code for itsdecision:
1. Whether findings recorded by the first Appellate courtDon Ex-A for allowing the defendants’ first appeal and, inconsequence, reversing the judgment/decree of the trialcourt is legally and factually sustainable?
2. What is the true nature of Ex-A? Can it be termed as“partition deed” or a document recognizing a factum ofEpartition already effected between the parties in relation tothe suit land?
3. Whether Ex-A binds the plaintiff’s and, if so, how and towhat extent?
4. Whether Ex-A requires registration and, if so, its effect?
F
5. Since Ex-A was exhibited in evidence without anyobjection, whether any objection about its admissibility orlegality can now be raised by the appellants in second appealand, if so, its effect?
G21. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds andis allowed. Impugned judgment is set aside. The appeal is remanded tothe High Court for its decision on merits on the substantial questions oflaw framed by us.
2. We, however, make it clear that we have not gone into the H
UMA PANDEY v. MUNNA PANDEY[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
merits of the case. The High Court will accordingly decide the appealon merits strictly in accordance with law uninfluenced by any of ourobservations.
23. Since the appeal is quite old, we request the High Court todecide the same preferably within six months.
Divya Pandey
Appeal allowed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H