TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 1898
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....walior in First Appeal No. 3 of 1998 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal and, in consequence, dismissed the Plaintiff's suit which was partly decreed by the Trial Court. 2. We herein set out the facts, in brief, to appreciate the issues involved in this appeal. 3. The Appellant is Plaintiff No. 1 whereas the Respondents are the Defendants in a suit out of which this appeal arises. 4. The case of the Appellant is that the land bearing Survey No. 899 measuring 18 Biswas situated at Apaganj Mama Ka Bazar Lashkar Gwalior, M.P. was purchased by him along with his mother from its previous owner Jaswant Kumar through registered sale deed dated 15.09.1941. The physical possession thereof was delivered to the Appellant and his m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as the land situated near Surya Narain temple was concerned, it was assessed as Rs. 800/- per sq. meter. Letters were also addressed by the Collector and Legal Aid in this regard. 9. Dissatisfied with the action of the Respondents, the Appellant and her mother filed a petition being W.P.(MP No. 290/1989 before the High Court. It was disposed of by the High Court on 22.06.1989 directing the Municipal Corporation to remove latrines, sewer lines, septic tank constructed on the land shown in Appendix 'A'. As no action was taken, the second Misc. Pet. No. 859 of 1989 was filed by the Appellant which was also disposed of by the High Court by order dated 16.03.1992 directing the Appellant to institute a civil suit for getting the disput....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led by the Appellant. It was held that the Appellant-plaintiffs are the owners of the land in dispute, on which trespass was committed by constructing temple, Dargah, latrines and others by the Respondents. It was held that the Appellant is entitled to get the encroachments removed from the land in suit. It was also held that the Government should acquire the land and pay the market value of the land to the Appellant because the land was being used for public purpose. 14. Against that part of the judgment of the Trial Court which resulted in rejection of the claim of the Appellant to allot him any alternate land in lieu of his land on which the encroachment was made, the Appellant felt aggrieved and filed an appeal being F.A. No. 3 of 19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... prove his title by examining his vendor and since it was not done, the decree passed by the Trial Court in Plaintiff's favour was not legally sustainable. This finding of the High Court, as mentioned above, resulted in dismissal of the appeal and the suit as well. 20. In our considered opinion, assuming that the High Court was right in its view, it should have given an opportunity to the Appellant to prove his title by allowing him to adduce proper evidence in support of his case and for that, the High Court should have remanded the case to the Trial Court for retrial of the suit. It was more so because we find that the Appellant suffered more damage to his case in prosecuting his own appeal. In the absence of any challenge laid by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any of our observations and of the High Court. 25. Parties to appear before the concerned Trial Court on 27.03.2017 to enable the Court to conclude the proceedings preferably within six months from the date of party's appearance. 26. Before parting with the case, we consider it apposite to bring to the notice of Trial Court the provisions of Order 27 Rule 5B of the Code of Civil Procedure which reads as under. 5B. Duty of court in suits against the government or a 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, whe....