Possession – Appellants’ father had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent in relation to the suit land, which was dismissed by the trial Court – After death of their father, appellants again filed a suit against the respondent, which was again dismissed by the trial Court as being barred by limitation but held the appellants to be owner of the suit land – Aggrieved appellants filed appeal before the High Court – Respondents also filed before the High Court a cross objection u/Or.41, r.22 of CPC and an application u/Or.41, r.27 of CPC alongwith copy of notification vide which the State had acquired the suit land, which was allegedly later allotted to the respondent – High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants and allowed the application u/Or. 41, r.27 and cross objection u/Or.41, r.22 filed by the respondent – Propriety of – On appeal, held: Proper – After issuance of the notifications under the Land acquisition Act and initiation of acquisition proceedings by the State which culminated in passing of the award as far back as in the year 1941, the appellants’ predecessor-in-title (their father) ceased to be owner of the suit land and lost all his rights to hold the suit land and claim possession – All ownership rights of the appellants’ predecessor-in-title in the suit land stood vested in the State once the acquisition proceedings were completed under the Act – Documents filed by the respondent fully establish that neither the appellants’ predecessor and nor the appellants had any subsisting prima facie title in their favour over the suit land on the date of filing the two suits – Insofar application u/Or.41,r.27 is concerned, the first Appellate Court has jurisdiction u/Or. 41, r.27 to allow the parties to file additional evidence, if such documents are required to decide the suit/appeal provided satisfactory explanation is given as to why the documents could not be filed in the suit and why they are filed in appeal – The respondent, in instant case, did give the explanation, which rightly found acceptance to the High Court – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. 41, r.22 and r.27 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.4 and 6. Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. After issuance of the notifications under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and initiation of acquisition proceedings by the State which culminated in passing of the award as far back as in the year 1941, the appellants’ predecessor-in-title ceased to be the owner of the suit land and lost all his rights to hold the suit land and claim possession over it. [Para 21] [858-E]
2.1 Neither the predecessor-in-title of the appellants and nor the appellants had any subsisting right, title and interest in the suit land on and after 1941 consequent upon issuance of the notifications by the State under the Act. The reason was that all the ownership rights of the appellants’ predecessor-in-title in the suit land stood vested in the State once the acquisition proceedings were completed under the Act. The appellants’ only right was to either challenge the land acquisition proceedings as being against the provisions of Act or to claim compensation payable under the Act in relation to the suit land under Section
11 of the Act followed by reference proceedings under Section
18 of the Act and lastly, in appeal before the High Court for its re-determination. [Para 23] [858-G-H; 859-A-B]
2.2 The appellants failed to file any document in rebuttal to the documents filed by the respondent in appeal by way of additional evidence with a view to show that the notifications issued under the Act for acquiring the suit land, which were relied on by the respondent in appeal, were either withdrawn or set aside or not given effect to. Such fact, alone would have enabled the appellants to claim and assert their right of ownership over the suit land. Such was, however, not the case of the appellants. [Para 24] [859-C-D]
3. The appellants contended that there was non-compliance of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC and hence the application filed by the respondent ought not to have been allowed by the High Court. The contention of appellants is devoid of any merit. In the first place, the documents sought to be filed by the respondent, namely, notifications issued under the Act were relevant and also necessary for deciding the rights of the parties involved in the suit/appeal. Second, these documents did not require any proof being public documents in nature. Third, the respondent had already made reference of these documents and laid foundation in the pleadings and lastly, the first Appellate Court has jurisdiction under Order 41 Rule 27 to allow the parties to file additional evidence, if such documents are required to decide the suit/appeal provided satisfactory explanation is given as to why the documents could not be filed in the suit and why they are filed in appeal. The respondent, in this case, did give the explanation, which rightly found acceptance to the High Court. [Paras 27 and 28] [859-F-H; 860-A-C]
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.