2008 (3) TMI 705 - SC - Indian Laws

Appeal Succeeds: High Court Judgment Overturned; Suit Dismissed Due to Misaddressed Legal Questions and Title Dispute.

ANATHULA SUDHAKAR Versus P. BUCHI REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.

The appeal is allowed, and the judgment of the HC is set aside, resulting in the dismissal of the suit. The HC erred by addressing questions of law not ... Jurisdiction of High court u/s 100 CPC - re-examining questions of fact - Pleas not made in the plaint - how a question of law relating to section 41 - Suit for permanent injunction - Restraint from interfering with the ownership and possession of the Plaintiff - HELD THAT:- The High Court while reversing the decision of the first appellate court, examined various aspects relating to title and recorded findings relating to title. It held that gifting a property to a daughter or sister by way of 'Pasupu Kumkumam', could be done orally and did not require a registered instrument. Even though there was no independence evidence of oral gift except the assertion to Rukminibai (which was denied by Damodar Rao), the High Court, held that there was an oral gift in her favour. It also accepted the evidence of PW3 and PW5 and plaintiffs, that Damodar Rao negotiated for the sale of the plots representing that they belonged to his sister Rukminibai and that he attested the sale deeds as a witness and identified the Rukminibai as the executant before the Sub-Registrar and therefore, section 41 of TP Act came to the aid of plaintiffs and Damodar Rao was estopped from denying the title of his sister. The High Court in a second appeal arising from a suit for an injunction, could not have recorded such findings, in the absence of pleadings and issue regarding title. We are therefore of the view that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under section 100 CPC, firstly in re-examining questions of fact, secondly by going into the questions which were not pleaded and which were not the subject matter of any issue, thirdly by formulating questions of law which did not arise in the second appeal, and lastly, by interfering with the well reasoned judgment of the first appellate court which held that the plaintiffs ought to have filed a suit for declaration. We are conscious of the fact that the suit was filed in the year 1978 and driving the plaintiffs to a fresh round of litigation after three decades would cause hardship to them. But the scope of civil cases are circumscribed by the limitations placed by the rules of pleadings, nature of relief claimed and the court fee paid. The predicament of plaintiffs, was brought upon themselves, by failing to convert the suit to one for declaration even when the written statement was filed, and by not seeking amendment of issues to include an issue on the question of title. In the absence of a prayer of declaration of title and an issue regarding title, let alone the pleadings required for a declaration of title, the parties cannot be said to have an opportunity to have a full-fledged adjudication regarding title. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and dismiss the suit. Nothing stated herein or by the courts below shall be construed as expression of any opinion regarding title, in any future suit for declaration and consequential reliefs that may be filed by the Appellants, in accordance with law. Parties to bear their respective costs. Issues Involved:1. Scope of a suit for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property.2. Necessity of filing a suit for declaration of title and injunction based on the facts.3. Examination of factual question of title by the High Court in a second appeal under section 100 CPC.4. Appropriate decision on the matter.Detailed Analysis:Re: Question (i): Scope of a Suit for Prohibitory Injunction Relating to Immovable PropertyThe judgment outlines the general principles regarding when a mere suit for permanent injunction will lie and when it is necessary to file a suit for declaration and/or possession with injunction as a consequential relief. The principles are:1. A suit for injunction simpliciter will lie when a plaintiff in lawful possession is interfered with by the defendant.2. If the plaintiff is not in possession but his title is not disputed, he must file a suit for possession and may seek an injunction in addition.3. If the plaintiff's title is in dispute or under a cloud, he must sue for declaration of title and consequential injunction.The judgment clarifies that a prayer for declaration is necessary if the denial of title by the defendant raises a cloud on the plaintiff's title. However, if the plaintiff has clear title supported by documents and the defendant is merely a trespasser, a suit for injunction may suffice. The court should relegate the plaintiff to a comprehensive suit for declaration and consequential relief if the issue of title involves complicated questions of fact and law.Re: Question (ii): Necessity of Filing a Suit for Declaration of Title and InjunctionThe plaintiffs claimed ownership through an oral gift by Damodar Rao to Rukminibai, which was not mutated in municipal records. The first appellate court found inconsistencies in the plaintiffs' evidence regarding Rukminibai's title. The plaintiffs did not produce any tax receipts prior to the sale by Damodar Rao to the defendant. The defendant, on the other hand, had tax receipts showing the property in Damodar Rao's name until the sale to him.The judgment emphasizes that the plaintiffs should have filed a suit for declaration of title due to the disputed and complex nature of the title. The plaintiffs relied on principles of ostensible ownership and section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, which necessitate a detailed examination suitable for a title suit, not a mere injunction suit.Re: Questions (iii) and (iv): Examination of Factual Question of Title by the High Court in a Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC and Appropriate DecisionThe High Court formulated substantial questions of law that were not supported by the pleadings or issues in the case. The second and third questions regarding ostensible ownership under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act and the validity of the oral gift did not arise from the pleadings. The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by re-examining questions of fact and formulating questions of law unrelated to the issues.The judgment concludes that the High Court erred in reversing the decision of the first appellate court, which had held that the plaintiffs should have filed a suit for declaration of title. The absence of necessary pleadings and issues regarding title precluded a proper adjudication on the matter.Appropriate Decision:The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the High Court is set aside, and the suit is dismissed. The judgment notes that the plaintiffs' predicament was due to their failure to convert the suit to one for declaration. The dismissal is without prejudice to any future suit for declaration and consequential reliefs that the plaintiffs may file. Each party bears its own costs.