Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: s.9 – Jurisdiction of civil court, when not barred – Suit filed by respondents and for permanent injunction claiming that the suit land situated in the revenue estate of Village Basai Darapur, Delhi was owned and possessed by them – Plea of appellant was that jurisdiction of civil court is barred as it is a boundary dispute between the village Basai Darapur and village Shakarpur and such dispute has to be decided in terms of s.28 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 – Held: The boundary disputes are between two revenue estates and does not include the demarcation of the land of the parties – s.83 of the Land Revenue Act bars the jurisdiction of the civil court in respect of : (a) the arrangement of area of the patwaris; (b) claims by any person to any of the offices mentioned in ss.13 or 14 or to any emolument or fees appertaining to such office, or in respect of any injury caused by his exclusion therefrom, or claims by any person to nominate persons to such offices; (c) the formation of the record of rights or the preparation, signing, or attestation of any of the documents contained therein, or the preparation of the annual register – No such dispute arose for consideration in the present matter – Suit was simplicitor for injunction based upon possession of the property – The said suit could be decided only by the civil court as there was no mechanism prescribed under the Land Revenue Act for grant of injunction in respect of disputes relating to possession – Civil court has plenary jurisdiction to entertain all disputes except in cases where the jurisdiction of the civil court is either expressly or impliedly barred in terms of s.9 of the Code – Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 – s.28.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: s.100 – Formulation of substantial question of law or reformulation of the same in terms of the proviso arises only if there are some questions of law and not in the absence of any substantial question of law – High Court is not obliged to frame substantial question of law, in case, it finds no error in the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Or.XLI r.27 – Permission to produce additional documents – Held: Additional documents cannot be permitted to be produced if they are not relevant to the plea raised by the applicant.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code was in respect of revenue documents in respect of Village Basai Darapur. Admittedly, the appellants have no claim on any part of the land of Village Basai Darapur. The appellants are asserting their possession relating to Khasra No. 79 of Village Shakarpur. The appellants have sought such revenue record in the additional evidence as the same was not in their knowledge and that no issue was also framed as to the correctness of the area of Khasra No. 238 of Village Basai Darapur. The plaintiffs have asserted their possession and title over Khasra No. 238 of Village Basai Darapur whereas defendant No. 4 averred that the land in dispute bears Khasra No. 79 situated in Village Shakarpur, Delhi. It is to be noted that Issue Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were related to ownership and possession of Khasra No. 238 and whether the land in dispute formed a part of Khasra No. 79 of Village Shakarpur. Therefore, the entire argument that no issue was framed in respect of correctness of area of Khasra No. 238 is untenable. The parties have understood the case about the area of Khasra No. 238 falling in Basai Darapur or in Khasra No. 79 of Village Shakarpur. Once the parties have understood the said controversy and had adduced evidence before the trial court, the appellant cannot be permitted to produce additional evidence in the first appeal. Thus, the additional documents cannot be permitted to be produced as they are not relevant to the plea raised by the appellant. [Para 17][1038-E-G; 1039-A-B]
2. The Land Revenue Act does not expressly bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of boundary disputes. The boundary disputes are between two revenue estates and does not include the demarcation of the land of the parties. Section 83 of the Land Revenue Act bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of : (a) the arrangement of area of the patwaris; (b) claims by any person to any of the offices mentioned in section
13 or 14 or to any emolument or fees appertaining to such office, or in respect of any injury caused by his exclusion therefrom, or claims by any person to nominate persons to such offices; (c) the formation of the record of rights or the preparation, signing, or attestation of any of the documents contained therein, or the preparation of the annual register. No such dispute arises for consideration in the present matter. Still further, the suit is simpliciter for injunction based upon possession of the property. The said suit could be decided only by the Civil Court as there is no mechanism prescribed under the Land Revenue Act for grant of injunction in respect of disputes relating to possession. The Civil Court has plenary jurisdiction to entertain all disputes except in cases where the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is either expressly or impliedly barred in terms of Section 9 of the Code. Since there is no implied or express bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court in terms of Section 9 of the Code, the Civil Court has plenary jurisdiction to decide all disputes between the parties. [Paras 18, 19, 20][1039-C-G]
3. The High Court did not commit any illegality in not framing any substantial question of law while dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants. Sub-section (1) of Section 100 of the Code contemplates that an appeal shall lie to the High Court if it is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. The substantial question of law is required to be precisely stated in the memorandum of appeal. If the High Court is satisfied that such substantial question of law is involved, it is required to formulate that question. The appeal has to be heard on the question so formulated. However, the Court has the power to hear appeal on any other substantial question of law on satisfaction of the conditions laid down in the proviso of Section 100 of the Code. Therefore, if the substantial question of law framed by the appellants are found to be arising in the case, only then the High Court is required to formulate the same for consideration. If no such question arises, it is not necessary for the High Court to frame any substantial question of law. The High Court is not obliged to frame substantial question of law, in case, it finds no error in the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court. [Paras 21, 23][1040-F; 1041-E-H]
Md. Mohammad Ali (dead) by LRs v. Jagadish Kalita & Ors., (2004) 1 SCC 271 : [2003] 4 Suppl. SCR 325; HubliDharwar Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. H.S. Mohd. Khan (dead) by LRs. & Ors., (2002) 2 SCC 109; Madhavan Nair v. Ramankutty & Anr., (2000) 2 SCC 356; N. Venkatareddy & Ors. v. Gopal & Ors. (2000)
10 SCC 309; Chandragouda & Anr. v. Shekharagouda S.Pittanagoudar (dead) by LRs. & Ors. (2000) 10 SCC 617; Kshitish Chandra Purkait v. Santosh Kumar Purkait & Ors., (1997) 5 SCC 438 : [1997] 1 Suppl. SCR 201; South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Today Homesand Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Etc. (2019) SCC OnLine SC 1052; Ashok Rangnath Magar v.
Shrikant Govindrao Sangvikar (2015) 16 SCC 763 : [2015] 12 SCR 931 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.