High CourtDivision Bench2007-02-23Appeal allowed in part; relief granted by the f...

Nathuni Ram v. Raghupat Ram and Ors.

Case / Petition Number:Civil Appeal No. 910 of 2007

Neutral Citation:2007 (3) S.C.R.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat
R. V. Ravendran
Judgment Date: 2007-02-23
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed to the extent that the relief granted to the appellant by the first appellate court stands confirmed. The High Court’s order to reverse that relief is not sustained to that extent. The relief of 22 decimals in favour of the appellant is maintained; the remainder remains as determined by the first appellate court. The appeal is allowed without any orders as to costs.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed in part; relief granted by the first appellate court stands confirmed; no order as to costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Nathuni Ram

Respondents

Raghupat Ram and Ors.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sunil Kumar
• Anita Kanungo
• Mridula Ray Bhardwaj

Counsels for Respondents

• Syed Ali Ahmad
• Syed Tanweer Ahmad
• S.S. Bandyopadhyay
• Mohd. Shah Nawaz Hasan
• Shabana Saifi
• Mohan Pandey

Case Synopsis & Summary

This appeal concerns a suit for declaratory title and confirmation of possession over land, initially dismissed by the trial court. On first appeal, the appellate court allowed the appellant’s claim for 22 decimals of land while granting the defendants possession over the remaining 14 decimals. The appellant challenged the correctness of the first appellate order under Section 100 CPC. Notably, the defendants did not challenge the relief granted by the first appellate court. The Jharkhand High Court reversed the first appellate relief, affirming the trial court’s view, and in effect nullified the relief already granted to the appellant. The appellant contended that such a course was contrary to law because a relief not appealed against could not be negated by the High Court, and that the High Court’s reversal was therefore impermissible. The Supreme Court found confusions in the High Court’s order: it suggested the appeal was dismissed yet reversed the relief granted by the first appellate court, which was not contested. It concluded that the appeal should be allowed to the extent that the relief granted by the first appellate court stands confirmed, thereby preserving the 22 decimals in the appellant’s favour while leaving the rest intact. The decision clarifies that unchallenged reliefs cannot be lightly overturned and that the appellate order’s settled portions should stand, with costs—none awarded.

Provisions of Law Cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 100

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the High Court’s approach is clearly contrary to law. Since the defendants did not file any appeal concerning the first appellate relief (22 decimals), the High Court had no jurisdiction to reverse that relief. Section 100 CPC empowers the appellate court to determine substantial questions of law; however, it cannot nullify a relief that was not challenged by the defendants. The High Court’s reversal creates confusion and undermines final appellate outcomes. The appellant argues that the relief granted by the first appellate court should stand and the High Court’s contrary conclusion cannot be sustained; the matter should be resolved by affirming the 22-decimal entitlement and leaving the remaining portion to be decided by the first appellate court.

Contentions of Respondents

Counsel for respondents concedes there was no appeal against the first appellate relief (22 decimals) and that there was no argument before the High Court challenging the legality of that relief. They submit that, notwithstanding lack of cross-appeal, the High Court was entitled to examine the overall legality under Section 100 CPC and correct any illegality, including the reversal of the trial court’s decision. They emphasize that the absence of a challenge to the 22-decimal relief cannot automatically immunize it from reconsideration in a higher proceeding, and they underline the need to ensure consistency of judgments. They request that the High Court’s reversal be sustained or, at minimum, that the appellant’s claims be resolved in a manner consistent with the first appellate order, with costs at the court’s discretion.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Nathuni Ram v. Raghupat Ram and Ors. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A ## NATHUNI RAM _v._ RAGHUPAT RAM AND ORS. ## FEBRUARY 23, 2007 B ## [DR. ARIJITPASAYAT ANDR.V. RA VEENDRAN,JJ.] _Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; s.100:_ _Suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession over suit_ C _land-Dismissed by trial Court-First appellate Court accepting claim of the appellant in respect of part of the suit land confirming possession of defendants on remaining part-Appeal preferred by appellant and not by defendantDismissed by High Court reversing the relief granted by first appellate Court-Correctness of-Held: Relief granted by first appellate Court was_ D _reversed by High Court even without any challenge from defendants-Hence, appeal allowed to the extent confirming the relief granted to the appellant earlier by the first appellate Court-Practice and Procedure-Appeal._ Appellant filed a suit for declaration of title and for confirmatiou of possession over the suit land. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. On E appeal, the first appellate Court allowed the appellant's claim in respect of 22 decima.I of land and allowed the defendants to have possession over 14 decimals of land. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, questioning correctness of the view expressed by the first appellate Court. Though the defendants had not questioned correctness of the F view expressed by the first appellate court, yet the High Court set aside the order of the first appellate Court and confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. The appeal filed by the appellant was allowed by the first appellate Court. Appellant still not satisfied with the judgment of first appellate Court filed an appeal, which was dismissed by High Court setting aside order of the first appellate Court. In fact, the relief that was granted to the appellant by the G first appellate Court was reversed. Hence the present appeal. Appellant contended that the course adopted by the High Court is clearly contrary to law; and that in the absence of an appeal by the defendants it was not open to the High Court to take a contrary view. H 36 NATHUNI RAMv. RAGHUPATRAM [PASAYAT, J.] 37 A -· ## Allowing the appeal, the Court _r_ HELD: There are confusions galore in the High Court's order; firstly the appeal was dismissed but the first appellate Court's order which was in favour of the appellant was set aside without any challenge from the defendants; secondly, in the appellant's appeal the relief which was not questioned by anybody could not have been nullified; thirdly, the High Court's[B ] ultimate conclusion was that the appeal was allowed while it was otherwise. Hence, the appeal is allowed to the extent that the relief granted to the appellant by the first appellate Court stands confirmed. (Paras 10 and 11) (38-G-H; 39-A-B) ## CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 910 of2007. c From the Judgment and Final Order dated 14.9.2004 of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Appellate Decree No. 37 of 2002. Sunil Kumar, Anita Kanungo and Mridula Ray Bhardwaj for the Appellant. D Syed Ali Ahmad, Syed Tanweer Ahmad, S.S. Bandyopadhyay, Mohd. Shah Nawaz Hasan, Shabana Saifi and Mohan Pandey for the Respondents. > The Judgment of the Court was delivered by _>_ ## DR. ARIJlT P ASAY AT, J. I. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court. The plaintiff, who had filed the second appeal before the High Court under Section I 00 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'Code'), has filed this appeal. ## 3. Detailed reference to the factual aspect is really unnecessary. F 4. Plaintiff had filed the suit for declaration of title as well as confirmation of possession over the suit land. The description of the property was given as plot No. 51 measuring 36 decimal of land appertaining to Khata No. 80 of G Village Japla, Dhorhara, District Palamu. The suit was dismissed by the learned Munsif Daltonganj . . 1. _5._ An appeal was carried before the first appellate court. In the appeal, learned Vlll Additional District Judge, Palamau held that the appellant's claim was to be accepted in respect of 22 decimal of land and that the defendants H 38 ## SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 3 S.C.R. A had got possession over 14 decimals _of_ land. Appellant filed appeal under Section 100 of the Code questioning correctness of the view expressed by the first appellate court. 6. Tht: following question was formulated in the second appeal treating B the same to be a substantial question of law. "Whether the Court of appeal below erred in law in rejecting plaintiffs claim over 14 decimals out of total 36 decimals land of plot No. 51, when Raiyati Settlement obtaining in 1342 Fasli was not negatived." 7. It is to be noted that the defendants had not questioned correctness c of the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court. Hereafter starts the confilsion. Though the defendants had not questioned correctness of the view expressed by the first appellate court and even had not tried to support the conclusions during hearing of the second appeal filed by the appellate, yet the High Court set aside the order of the first appellant court and D consequentially confirmed the judgment of the trial court. As if that was not enough, in the ultimate conclusion the High Court noted that the appeal filed by the appellant was allowed. In fact the relief that was granted to the appellant by the first appellate court was reversed. c 8. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the course adopted by the High Court is clearly contrary to law. Admittedly there was no appeal questioning the first appellate court's view regarding appellant's entitlement to 22 decimals of land. In the absence of an appeal by the defendants it was not open to the High Court to take a contrary view. E F 9. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly conceded that there was no appeal filed by them so far as the relief granted by the first appellant court i.e. 22 decimals of land. It was also fairly conceded that there was no stand taken by them before the High Court to the effect that the relief granted to the appellant was not legal. ## G 10. As noted above there are confusions galore in the High Court's order; firstly the appeal was dismissed but the first appellate court's order which was in favour of the appellant was set aside without any challenge from the defendants ; secondly in the appellant's appeal the relief which was not questioned by anybody could not have been nullified; thirdly, the High H Court's ultimate conclusion was that the appeal was allowed while it was .. _)_ NATHUNI RAMv. RAGHUPATRAM [PASAYAT.J.] 39 A otherwise. 11. Above being the position we allow the appeal to the extent that the relief granted to the appellant by the first appellate court stands confirmed. The High Court's order, directing that the appellate court's judgment is to be reversed and that of the trial court is to be restored, cannot stand to that extent. B 12. The appeal is allowed without any orders as to costs. S.K.S. Appeal allowed. )