Supreme Court of India
TOWN PLANNING MUNICIPAL COUNCILversusRAJAPPA & ANR.
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 38
- Decided
- 10 January 2008
- Disposal
- Case Allowed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The High Court’s order allowing the second appeal without framing a question of law and interfering with factual findings violates Section 100 CPC.
Summary
The plaintiff, Rajappa, filed a suit claiming 3 acres 22 guntas of land as ancestral property. The municipal council defended that the land was designated as "Sega Local Fund" under the Karnataka Municipalities Act and that a mandatory notice under Section 284(1) had not been issued. The trial court dismissed the suit for lack of notice, a decision affirmed by the first appellate court. The Karnataka High Court, on a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, reversed the lower courts’ findings without formulating a question of law and interfered with factual findings, delivering a practically non‑reasoned judgment. The Supreme Court held that the High Court violated the mandate of Section 100 by not framing a question of law and by interfering with facts, and therefore allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration.
Issues considered
- Whether a second appeal under Section 100 CPC can be entertained without framing a question of law.
- Whether the High Court may interfere with findings of fact on a second appeal.
- Whether the mandatory notice requirement under Section 284(1) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act was complied with.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Second appealSection 100 CPCQuestion of lawKarnataka Municipalities ActMandatory noticeInterference with factsAncestral propertyMunicipal land
Judgment
(2008] 1 S.C.R. 543
TOWN PLANNING MUNICIPAL COUNCIL A
v.
RAJAPPA & ANR.
(C.A. No. 2836 of 2001)
JANUARY 10, 2008.
B
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.)
~
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 100:
Second appeal - Formulation of question of law -
Requirements of - Suit claiming land/property to be ancestral c
property- Dismissed by trial Court-Affirmed by first appellate
Court - Reversed by the High Court -On appeal, Held: High
Court by interfering with the finding of facts, without formulating
a question of law, violated mandate of s. 100 CPC - Moreover,
the Judgment of the High Court is practically non-reasoned - D
Hence, matter remitted to High Court for consideration afresh
---'..
~ . after formulating the question of law-Karnataka Municipalities
Act- S.284(1)- Issuance of Notice- Mandatory requirement
of.
Respondent No.1 filed a suit in respect of certain
E
property claiming it to be his ancestral property. The
defendants resisted the suit on the ground that the suit
has been shown as 'Sega Local Fund' property since 1954
belonging to the Town Municipal Council, as such it has
·-.i
' every right to deal with in accordance with the Municipal F
~
Laws. Trial Court dismissed the suit in limine holding the
suit land/property as 'Sega Local Fund' and no notice in
compliance with the mandatory requirements in terms of
s.284(1) was issued. The judgment of the trial Court was
upheld by the first appellate Court. In appeal, judgment of G
the trial Court as affirmed by the first appellate Court was
'1 reversed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
543 H
544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 1 S.C.R.
..,it...
A HELO: 1.1 The Second Appeal was allowed by the
High Court without framing a question of law which Is
clear·ly contrary to the mandate of Section 100. (Para - 5)
[545·F, G]
Gian Dass vs. Panchayat, Village Sunner Kalan & Ors.
B JT (2006) 7 SC 102; Joseph Severane and Ors. vs. Benny
Mathew and Ors. JT (2005) 8 SC 509; Sasikumar and Ors. .)(
vs. Kunnath Chellappan Nair and Ors. JT (2005) 9 SC 171 ;
Chadat Singh vs. Bahadur Ram and Ors. JT (2004) 6 SC 296
and Kanhaiyalal vs. Anupkumar JT (2002) 10 SC 98 - relled
c on.
1.2 The High Court In second appeal Interfered with
the findings of facts. Since judgment of Slngle Judge of
the High Court Is practlcally non-reasoned, It Is not
poss Ible to find out as to what weighed with the High Court
D
to upset the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the
Trlal Court and the First Appellate Court. Hence, the >-
matter Is remitted to the High Court for fresh con· .'
slderatlon keeping In view parameters of Section 100
CPC. (Para - 6) [546·A, B, C]
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
2836 of 2001.
From the final Order dat~d 12.1.1998 of the Hfgh Court of
Karnataka at Bangalore In R.S.A. No. 359of1993. r
F ....
S. Nanda Kumar, Satlsh Kumar, Ananda Selvam and V.N.
Raghupathy for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge Iii this appeal Is to
the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High ......
Court allowing the second appeal flied by the respondent under
Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (In short
'CPC'). The respondent no.1 had flied a suit In respect of 3 ·
acres 22 guntas of land In Survey no.393/Aa (Palkl) situated In
H
TOWN PLANNING MUNICIPAL COUNCIL v. RAJAPPA 545 ,
& ANR. [PASAYAT, J.]
._.....
Yadgir-8, Taluk Yadgir. Plaintiff claimed property to be ancestral A
property.
2. The defendants resisted the suit contending that the suit
land being shown as 'Sega Local Fund' property since 1954, it
is the property belonging to the Town Municipal Council, Vadgir
as such it has every right to deal with in accordance with the B
Municipal Laws and that the plaintiff cannot prevent lawful action
1- of the defendants by way of such suit. It was further contended
that the plaintiff if not at all in possession of the suit land and that
they have issued notification as required under the Municipal
Law to provide sites to houseless persons and the plaintiff, c
winning over the village Accountant, got his name entered in the
column of cultivator without any right and, therefore, the suit of
the plaintiff is not at all maintainable. With ~hese contentions,
the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.
D
3. The Trial Court framed the issues and came to hold that
~
under Section 284(1) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, (in
i .
short the 'Act') previous notice for the suits is mandatory and
there was no compliance with the said requirement and,
therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed In llmlne. It was
also pointed out that entry In the Khasra Pahanl and R.O.R. right E
from 1954-55 Indicated the.suit land as "Sega Local Fund" and
tne same was not challenged by the plaintiff or his ancestors.
4. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court found that
--t·
' there was no merit In the suit and accordingly the suit was · F
,)
Qismlssed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court upheld .
· It. Th~ High Court, as noted' above, reversed the findings and
• allowed the second appeal. ·
5. At the outset It Is to be Indicated that the Second Appeal
·was allowed without framing a question of law which Is clearly G
'"{ ' contrary to the mandate of Section 100. This position has been
''
highlighted In several decisions. (See Gian Dass v. Parichayat,
VIiiage Sunner Kalan & Ors. (JT ·2ooe (,7).SC 102), Joseph
Severane and Ors. v. Benny Mathew and Ors. (JT 2005 (8)
SC 509), Saslkumar and Ors. v Kunnath Che//appan Nair an.d H
546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 1 S.C.R.
~
A Ors. (JT 2005 (9) SC 171 ), Chadat Singh v. Bahadur Ram
and Ors. (JT 2004 (6) SC 296) and Kanhaiyala/ v. Anupkumar
(JT 2002 (10) SC 98).
6. Apart from that it is noted that the judgment of the learned
Single Judge is practically non-reasoned. The High Court in
8 second appeal interfered with the findings of facts. Therefore,
since the judgment is practically non-reasoned, it is not possible ~
to find out as to what weighed with the High Court to upset the
concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court and the
First Appellate Court. We remit the matter to the High Court for
c fresh consideration keeping in view parameters of Section 100
CPC.
7. The appeal is allowed. No costs.
S.K.S. Appeal allowed.
D
)..-
.'
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Second appeal"Sign in to search