1999 (5) TMI 621 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Emphasizes Suit Scope, Rejects Appeal on Property Title Dispute

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing adherence to the suit's scope. The appellant's challenge regarding maintainability of the Letters ... - Issues: Scope of dispute limited to possession, additional evidence admitted beyond scope of suit, maintainability of Letters Patent Appeal, appellant's title to propertyAnalysis:1. The dispute between the parties was limited to possession of a property in Bombay. The respondent sought a permanent injunction based on his exclusive possession for several decades. The trial court decreed the suit in part, and the matter was remanded for fresh disposal. The Appellate Judge restricted the scope of remand, allowing the filing of additional written statements and appointing an architect-Commissioner to draw a sketch map. The trial court passed a decree based on possession, leaving the question of title open.2. The High Court, in an unusual procedure, allowed additional evidence and recorded findings on the appellant's title to the property. The Single Judge concluded that the respondent failed to prove possession and dismissed the suit, alleging the respondent of forgery and perjury. The Division Bench set aside the Single Judge's judgment, considering the limited scope of the suit and absence of title issues, and restored the trial court's decree based on possession.3. The appellant contended that the Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable and the suit based on possession without title was not maintainable against the owner. However, the Supreme Court clarified the maintainability of the appeal under the Letters Patent and refuted the appellant's claim of title based on trial court findings and a notice issued by respondent's advocates.4. The Single Judge's admission of additional evidence on title without a plea or issue on the matter was deemed beyond jurisdiction. The Supreme Court highlighted the principles of possessory title, the protection of long continuous possession through injunction, and the requirement for the owner to regain possession through due process of law.5. Ultimately, the Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it with costs, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the scope of the suit and legal principles governing possession and title disputes.