HARYANA STATE & ANR.versusGRAM PANCHAYAT VILLAGE KALEHRI

                         [2016] 3 S.C.R. 159



                    HARYANA STATE & ANR.                                  A
                                  v.
           GRAM PANCHAYAT VILLAGE KALEHRI
                   (Civil Appeal No.2516 of2008)
                           JUNE 29, 2016                                  B

[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.)
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
     s. 100 - Second appeal - Substantial question of law - Issue
as regards ownership rights and proper interpretation of documents        c
to prove the ownership rights over the suit land - Dismissal of second
appeal in limine since the appeal did not involve substantial qi1estion
of law - On appeal, held: Where the court is required to properly
interpret the nature of the documents, it only involves legal issue
based on admitted documents, thus the appeal involved substantial
                                                                          D
questions of law - High Court was upon obligation to decide the
legality and correctness of such findings - High Court could do so
only when it had first admitted the appeal and framed substantial
questions of law as required uls. JOO - Thus, the High Court
committed jurisdictional error in dismissing the appeal in limine -
Matter remanded to the High Court for deciding the second appeal          E
afresh on merits.
      Or. 27 r. 5B - Suit against the Gover11111ent or a public officer
- Duty of court to assist in arriving at a settlement - On facts, no
endeavour made by Court or by parties to arrive at a settlement -
Only 011 failure of settlement being reported, case should have been      F
finally decided on merits.
     Allowing the appeal, the Court
     HELD: 1.1 The appeal does involve the substantial questions
of law and, therefore, the High Court should have admitted the
appeal by framing substantial questions of law arising in the case        G
and then after giving notice to the respondent for its final hearing
as provided u/s. 100 CPC should have decided the appeal finally
on merits. As a matter of fact, having regard to the nature of
controversy and keeping in view the issues involved, such as
                                                                          H
                                  159
160             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2016] 3 S.C.R.


A     the issue regarding ownership rights coupled with the issue
      regarding proper interpretation of documents to prove the
      ownership rights over the suit land, these issues do constitute
      substantial questions of law. Where the Court is required to
      properly interpret the nature of the documents, it does not involve
      any issue of fact as such but it only involves legal issue based on
B
      admitted documents. It is, therefore, obligatory upon the High
      Court to decide the legality and correctness of such findings as
      to which party's documents are to be preferred for conferring
      title over the suit land. The High Court could do so only when it
      had first admitted the appeal and framed substantial questions of
c     law as required u/s.100 CPC.[Paras 14,15) [162-F-H; 163-A-C]
           1.2 The High Court committed jurisdictional error when it
      dismissed the appeal in limine saying that it only involves question
      of fact. Thus, the case is remanded to the High Court for deciding
      the appeal on merits. The High Court is requested to admit the
D     second appeal and frame appropriate substantial questions of law
      as arc required u/s.100, keeping in view the documents and the
      findings recorded by the courts below on the question of
      ownership over the suit land. [Paras 16,17,18) [163-C-E)
           2. This is a case filed by a statutory public body against the
E     Government and it is in relation to the ownership rights on a
      piece of land ·which both are asserting against each other. No
      endeavour was made by the Court or by the parties to arrive at a
      settlement keeping in view the mandate of Order 27 Ruic SB. It
      should have been done and only on failure being reported, the
      case should have been finally decided on merits in accordance
 F    with law. [Paras 20, 22] [163-H; 164-A, G]
                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2516
      of2008.
           From the Judgment and Order dated 18.11.2005 of the High Court
 G    of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R. S. A. No. 4083 of 2005.
           Samar Vijay Singh, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Advs., for the Appellant.
           The Judgment of the Com1 was delivered by
            ABHAY MANOIIAR SAPRE, J. I. This appeal is filed against
      the finaljudgment and order dated 18.11.2005 of the High Court of Punjab
 H
 HARYANA STATE & ANR. v. GRAM PANCHAYAT VILLAGE                                161
       KALEHRI [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No. 4083 of 2005 whereby the               A
High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants herein against
the order dated 24.08.2005 of the Additional District Judge, Kamal in
Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2005 affirming the judgment/decree dated
11.06.2002 of the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Kamal in Civil Suit No. 226
of2001.
                                                                                B
      2. In order to appreciate the issues involved in the appeal, which
lie in a narrow compass, few facts need mention infra.
     3. The appellant-the State of Haryana is the defendant. The
respondent-Gram Panchayat of village Kalehri is the plaintiff.
     4. The dispute in the suit relates to the land measuring 36 kanals         c
15 Marlas comprised in Khewat No. 361 min/350m, Khatoni No. 536
min, Khasra No 59 Gair Mumkin Nala situated in village Kalehri, Tahsil
Gharaunda, District Kamal (hereinafter referred to as "the suit land").
     5. The respondent filed a suit bearing Civil Suit No. 226 of2001
against the appellants in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Kamal.       D
The suit was for a declaration that they are the owner of the suit land
and that the appellant (State) have no right, title and interest in the suit
land. The respondent also claimed prohibitory injunction against the
appellants restraining the State authorities from interfering in their
peaceful possession over the suit land. The respondent based their claim        E
of ownership on several documents which, according to them, exclusively
proved their superior title over every one including the State.
     6. The appellants filed their written statement and denied the
respondent's claim of the ownership. The appellants then asserted their
ownership rights over the suit land to the exclusion of every one. The
                                                                                F
dispute tht1s essentially centered around to the ownership of the suit land
as to who is the owner of the suit land, viz., the appellants or the
respondent.
      7. The Trial Court, on the basis of pleadings, framed issues. Both
parties adduced oral and documentary evidence to prove their title over
                                                                                G
the suit land.
      8. The Trial Court by judgment/decree dated 11.06.2002 decreed
the suit in favour of the plaintiff. On appreciating the evidence adduced
by the parties, it was held that the respondent (plaintiff) is the owner of
the suit land. Accordingly, injunction, as claimed by the respondent against
                                                                                H
162             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2016] 3 S.C.R.


A     the appellants, was also granted.
           9. The appellants, felt aggrieved, filed first appeal being Civil Appeal
      No. 30 of2005 before the Additional District Judge, Karna!. The first
      appellate Court vide judgment dated 24.08.2005 dismissed the appeal
      and affinned the judgment/decree of the Trial Court.
B           I 0. The appellants, felt aggrieved, filed second appeal being R.S.A.
      No. 4083 of2005 in the High Court. The learned Single Judge of the
      High Court, by impugned judgment/order, dismissed the second appeal
      in limine holding that the appeal does not involve any substantial question
      of law as required under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
c     1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"). Felt aggrieved, the State
      filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
          11. Heard Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the appellants.
      Though served, none appeared for the respondent.
           12. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and on
D     perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal and
      remand the case to the High Court for deciding the second appeal afresh
      on merits after hearing both the parties.
            13. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the appeal held as under:
             "After hearing learned counsel, I am of the considered view
E
             that there is no question of law which would require
             determination by this Court under Section 100 of the Code.
             The aforementioned findings are pure findings of fact, which
             are based on ample evidence. Therefore, there is no merit
             in the appeal. Dismissed."
 F
            14. ln our considered view, the appeal does involve the substantial
      questions of law and, therefore, the High Court should have admitted
      the appeal by framing substantial questions of law arising in the case
      and then after giving notice to the respondent for its final hearing as
      provided under Section I 00 of the Code should have decided the appeal
G     finally on merits.
           15. As a matter of fact, having regard to the nature of controversy
      and keeping in view the issues involved, such as the issue regarding
      ownership rights coupled with the issue regarding proper interpretation
      of documents (exhibits) to prove the ownership rights over the suit land,
H     we are of the view that these issues do constitute substantial questions
 HARYANA STATE & ANR. v. GRAM PANCHAYAT VILLAGE                                163
       KALEHRI [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

of law, viz., whether the Courts below were justified in properly              A
interpreting the documents/exhibits relied upon by the parties· for
determining the ownership rights over the suit land? In other words, we
are of the view that where the Court is required to properly interpret the
nature of the documents, it does not involve any issue of fact as such but
it only involves legal issue based on admitted documents. It is, therefore,
                                                                                B
obligatory upon the High Court to decide the legality and correctness of
such findings as to which party's documents are to be preferred for
conferring title over the suit land. In this case, the High Court could do
so only when it had first admitted the appeal and framed substantial
questions of law as required under Section JOO of the Code.
      16. The High Court thus, in our view, committed jurisdictional error      c
when it dismissed the appeal in limine saying that it only involves question
of fact. We cannot countenance the approach of the High Court. The
impugned order, therefore, is liable to be set aside.
     17. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is
allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The case is now remanded to          D
the High Court for deciding the appeal on merits in accordance with
law.
      18. We request the High Court to admit the second appeal and
frame appropriate substantial questions of law as are required to be
framed under Section I 00 of the Code, keeping in view the documents            E
(exhibits) and the findings recorded by the courts below on the question
of ownership in relation to the suit land. Needless to say the questions to
be framed should be specific with relevance to exhibit and errors in the
findings recorded by the two courts below so that they can be properly
answered on their merits.                                                       F
     19. Before parting, we consider it proper to mention here that we
are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy but
confined our inquiry only to examine whether the second appeal involved
any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section I00 of the
Code. Since we have held that the appeal does involve the substantial           G
questions oflaw and hence we have requested the High Court to formally
admit the appeal and frame substantial questions of law and then answer
them finally on merits in accordance with the law.
    20. There is one more aspect of this case which we have noticed
and we consider it apposite to mention here. As is clear, this is a case
                                                                                H
164              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2016] 3 S.C.R.



A     filed by a statutory public body against the Government and it is in relation
      to the ownership rights on a piece ofland which both are asserting against
      each other.
           21. Order 27 of the Code deals with the suits which are filed by the
      Government or against the Government. Rule 58 of Order 27 casts a
8     duty on the Court in a suit filed against the Government to assist the
      parties to the suit in arriving at a settlement. Rule 5 8 of Order 27 reads
      as under:
      Order 27 Rule SB
               "SB. Duty of Court in suits against the Government or a
c              public officer to assist in arriving at a settlement-
         (1) In every suit or proceeding to which the Government, or
             a public officer acting in his official capacity, is a party, it
             shall be the duty of the Court to make, in the first instance,
             every endeavour, where it is possible to do so consistently
D            with the nature and circumstances of the case, to assist
             the parties in arriving at a settlement in respect of the
             subject-matter of the suit.


         (2)     If, in any such suit or proceeding, at any stage, it appears
 E
                to the Court that there is a reasonable possibility of a
                settlement between the parties, the Court may adjourn
                the proceeding for such period as it thinks fit, to enable
                attempts to be made to effect such a settlement.
         (3)    The power conferred under sub-rule(2) is in addition to
 F
                any other power of the Court to adjourn proceedings."
            22. It is clear from the record that no such endeavour was made by
      the Court or by the parties to an-ive at a settlement keeping in view the
      mandate of Order 27 Rule 58 quoted above. In our view, it should have
      been done and only on failure being reported, the case should have been
 G    finally decided on merits in accordance with law.
           23. We now request the High Court to decide the second appeal in
      accordance with law finally on merits keeping in view the aforesaid
      observations and, if possible, preferably within six months.

 H          24. Since none appeared for the respondent in this appeal despite
 HARYANA STATE & ANR. v. GRAM PANCHAYAT VILLAGE                             165
       KALEHRI [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

service, we request the High Court to issue notice to the respondent for    A
final hearing the second appeal before it is heard finally.
    25. Record of the case, if requisitioned, be sent back to the High
Court forthwith by the registry.
Nidhi Jain                                                Appeal allowed.
                                                                            B