1997 (2) TMI 538 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Reverses High Court Decision, Upholds Trial Court Decree

PANCHUGOPAL BARUA Versus UMESH CHANDRA GOSWAMI

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the trial court's decree. The respondent's plea based on ... - Issues Involved:1. Permissive Use of Land and Khas Possession2. Specific Performance of Oral Agreement3. Applicability of Section 60(b) of the Easement Act4. Scope of Second Appeal u/s 100 C.P.C.Summary:1. Permissive Use of Land and Khas Possession:The predecessor of the appellant allowed respondent No. 1 to make permissive use of a plot of land for two years starting from 1.6.63, with an understanding that the respondent would remove the structure and deliver khas possession after the period. Upon failure to vacate, a suit for khas possession and compensation was filed. The trial court decreed in favor of the appellant, directing khas possession to be given to the plaintiff and dismissing the respondent's suit for specific performance of an oral agreement to sell the land.2. Specific Performance of Oral Agreement:Respondent No. 1 filed a suit for specific performance of an oral agreement to sell the land, claiming he had paid Rs. 7860 as the sale price and constructed a house. The trial court found no evidence of such an agreement or payment and dismissed the suit. The District Judge and the High Court upheld this finding, dismissing the respondent's appeals.3. Applicability of Section 60(b) of the Easement Act:The High Court allowed the second appeal by respondent No. 1, granting the benefit of Section 60(b) of the Easement Act, holding the licence irrevocable on principles of 'justice, equity and good conscience.' The High Court relied on a local commissioner's report indicating the structure was of a permanent nature. However, the Supreme Court noted that the Easement Act does not apply to Assam and that the High Court erred in applying Section 60(b) of the Act. The Supreme Court emphasized that the principles of 'justice, equity and good conscience' could not override legislative intent.4. Scope of Second Appeal u/s 100 C.P.C.:The Supreme Court highlighted that the High Court overlooked the 1976 amendment to Section 100 C.P.C., which restricts second appeals to cases involving a substantial question of law. The High Court failed to formulate any substantial question of law and treated the second appeal as a first appeal. The Supreme Court reiterated that new issues not supported by pleadings or evidence at the trial stage cannot be raised in a second appeal. The High Court's approach was deemed improper, and the concurrent findings of fact by the trial and first appellate courts were upheld.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the trial court's decree. The respondent's plea based on Section 60(b) of the Easement Act was rejected, and no relief was granted on the basis of 'justice, equity and good conscience' due to the respondent's conduct and false claims.