Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High CourtDivision BenchAppeal allowed; remitted to High Court for fres...

Town Planning Municipal Council v. Rajappa & Anr.

Case / Petition Number:C.A. No. 2836 of 2001
Neutral Citation:2008(1) S.C.R. 543

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court
Hon'ble Judges
  • Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT
  • P. SATHASIVAM
Judgment Date
2008-01-10
Court Decision / Holding
Appeal allowed. The matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration in light of the parameters of Section 100 CPC; no costs.
Final Disposition
Appeal allowed; remitted to High Court for fresh consideration keeping in view Section 100 CPC; no costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Town Planning Municipal Council

Respondents

  • Rajappa
  • Anr.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • S. Nanda Kumar
  • • Satish Kumar
  • • Ananda Selvam
  • • V. N. Raghupathy

Case Synopsis & Summary

Town Planning Municipal Council v. Rajappa & Anr. concerns a dispute over whether a land parcel, shown since 1954 as Sega Local Fund property, is ancestral property of the plaintiff or property belonging to the Town Municipal Council under Karnataka law. The trial court dismissed the suit in limine, holding the land to be Sega Local Fund and finding no mandatory notice under Section 284(1) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act. The First Appellate Court upheld the dismissal. On appeal, the Karnataka High Court reversed the concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s interference with facts, without first formulating a question of law, violated the mandate of Section 100 CPC. It noted that the High Court’s second appeal order was practically non-reasoned and therefore failed to articulate why and how the concurrent findings were upset. The Court remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration in light of Section 100 CPC, and underscored that the notice under Section 284(1) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act is a mandatory requirement. The judgment also cites several precedents (e.g., Gian Dass, Joseph Severane, Sasikumar, Chadat Singh, Kanhaiyalal) to illustrate the importance of framing a question of law in second appeals and the limits of reweighing facts at this stage.

Provisions of Law Cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 100Karnataka Municipalities Act; Section 284(1)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contended that the High Court committed an error by allowing the second appeal without formulating a question of law, contrary to the mandate of Section 100 CPC. They argued that the High Court interfered with concurrent findings of fact rendered by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, and that the judgment of the Single Judge was practically non-reasoned, making it impossible to discern the reasoning for upsetting the lower courts’ findings. They stressed that Section 284(1) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act requires prior notice, which is mandatory, and that the suit land had been treated as Sega Local Fund property for decades, with entry in Khasra and ROR. The appellants urged remand to the High Court for fresh consideration with proper framing of questions of law and compliance with statutory requirements.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that the land status as Sega Local Fund property (since 1954) vested in the Town Municipal Council and that the plaintiff cannot establish ancestral ownership. They submitted that notice under Section 284(1) was subject to municipal law procedures and that the plaintiff’s possession and entries in Khasra/ROR support the council’s entitlement to deal with the land under municipal law. They contended that the High Court’s reversal of the trial court’s findings was justified and that the second appeal should not be constrained by the strict formulation of questions of law when the facts and statutory issues were clear.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Dass v. Panchayat, Village Sunner Kalan & Ors.JT (2006) SC 102Mentioned OnlyCited to illustrate precedent about framing questions of law in second appeals; not directly applied to the disputed facts in this case.
Joseph Severane and Ors. v. Benny Mathew and Ors.JT (2005) SC 509Mentioned OnlyCited for general principle; no direct application to the case’s factual and legal issues.
Sasikumar and Ors. v Kunnath Chellappan Nair and Ors.JT (2005) SC 171Mentioned OnlyCited in the context of second appeal principles; not treated as controlling authority in this matter.
Chadat Singh v. Bahadur Ram and Ors.JT (2004) SC 296Mentioned OnlyCited to support the general proposition regarding framing of points of law in second appeals.
Kanhaiyalal v. AnupkumarJT (2002) SC 98Mentioned OnlyCited for related jurisprudence on second appeals; not expressly distinguished or overruled here.

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 Town Planning Municipal Council v. Rajappa & Anr. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

(2008] 1 S.C.R. 543 A ~ ---'.. '1 ## TOWN PLANNING MUNICIPAL COUNCIL _v._ RAJAPPA & ANR. (C.A. No. 2836 of 2001) JANUARY 10, 2008. B (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) _Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 100:_ ~ . - - _Second appeal Formulation of question of law_ - c _Requirements of Suit claiming land/property to be ancestral property- Dismissed by trial Court-Affirmed by first appellate_ - _Court Reversed by the High Court -On appeal, Held: High Court by interfering with the finding of facts, without formulating a question of law, violated mandate of s. 100 CPC_ - _Moreover, the Judgment of the High Court is practically non-reasoned_ - D _Hence, matter remitted to High Court for consideration afresh after formulating the question of law-Karnataka Municipalities Act- S.284(1)- Issuance of Notice- Mandatory requirement of._ Respondent No.1 filed a suit in respect of certain[E ] property claiming it to be his ancestral property. The defendants resisted the suit on the ground that the suit has been shown as 'Sega Local Fund' property since 1954 belonging to the Town Municipal Council, as such it has _·-.i_ F ' every right to deal with in accordance with the Municipal ~ Laws. Trial Court dismissed the suit in limine holding the suit land/property as 'Sega Local Fund' and no notice in compliance with the mandatory requirements in terms of s.284(1) was issued. The judgment of the trial Court was upheld by the first appellate Court. In appeal, judgment of[G ] the trial Court as affirmed by the first appellate Court was '1 reversed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court 543 H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 1 S.C.R. 544 HELO: 1.1 The Second Appeal was allowed by the High Court without framing a question of law which Is - clear·ly contrary to the mandate of Section 100. (Para 5) [545·F, G] A _Gian Dass vs. Panchayat, Village Sunner Kalan_ & _Ors._ B JT (2006) 7 SC 102; _Joseph Severane and Ors. vs. Benny Mathew and Ors._ JT (2005) 8 SC 509; _Sasikumar and Ors. vs. Kunnath Chellappan Nair and Ors._ JT (2005) 9 SC 171 ; _Chadat Singh vs. Bahadur Ram and Ors._ JT (2004) 6 SC 296 - and _Kanhaiyalal vs. Anupkumar_ JT (2002) 10 SC 98 relled c on. 1.2 The High Court In second appeal Interfered with the findings of facts. Since judgment of Slngle Judge of the High Court Is practlcally non-reasoned, It Is not D[poss ][Ible ][to ][find ][out ][as ][to ][what ][weighed ][with ][the ][High ][Court ] to upset the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Trlal Court and the First Appellate Court. Hence, the matter Is remitted to the High Court for fresh con· slderatlon keeping In view parameters of Section 100[6) ][[546·A, ][B, ][C] ] E[CPC. ][(Para ][-] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2836 of 2001. _..,it..._ _.)(_ >- . ' From the final Order dat~d 12.1.1998 of the Hfgh Court of Karnataka at Bangalore In R.S.A. No. 359of1993. S. Nanda Kumar, Satlsh Kumar, Ananda Selvam and V.N. Nanda Kumar, Satlsh Kumar, Ananda Selvam and V.N. Kumar, Satlsh Kumar, Ananda Selvam and V.N. Satlsh Kumar, Ananda Selvam and V.N. Kumar, Ananda Selvam and V.N. Ananda Selvam and V.N. Selvam and V.N. and V.N. V.N. Raghupathy for the Appellant. for the Appellant. the Appellant. Appellant. _r_ F .... S. Nanda Kumar, Satlsh Kumar, Ananda Selvam and V.N. Nanda Kumar, Satlsh Kumar, Ananda Selvam and V.N. Kumar, Satlsh Kumar, Ananda Selvam and V.N. Satlsh Kumar, Ananda Selvam and V.N. Kumar, Ananda Selvam and V.N. Ananda Selvam and V.N. Selvam and V.N. and V.N. V.N. Raghupathy for the Appellant. for the Appellant. the Appellant. Appellant. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge Iii this appeal Is to G the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court allowing the second appeal flied by the respondent under ...... Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (In short 'CPC'). The respondent no.1 had flied a suit In respect of 3 · H[acres ][22 ][guntas ][of ][land ][In ][Survey ][no.393/Aa ][(Palkl) ][situated ][In ] F 545 TOWN PLANNING MUNICIPAL COUNCIL _v._ RAJAPPA & ANR. [PASAYAT, J.] , _1-_ --t· ' _,)_ _'"{_ ' '' ._..... Yadgir-8, Taluk Yadgir. Plaintiff claimed property to be ancestral A property. 2. The defendants resisted the suit contending that the suit land being shown as 'Sega Local Fund' property since 1954, it is the property belonging to the Town Municipal Council, Vadgir B as such it has every right to deal with in accordance with the Municipal Laws and that the plaintiff cannot prevent lawful action of the defendants by way of such suit. It was further contended that the plaintiff if not at all in possession of the suit land and that they have issued notification as required under the Municipal Law to provide sites to houseless persons and the plaintiff, c winning over the village Accountant, got his name entered in the column of cultivator without any right and, therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is not at all maintainable. With ~hese contentions, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit. 3. The Trial Court framed the issues and came to hold that[D ] ~ under Section 284(1) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, (in i . short the 'Act') previous notice for the suits is mandatory and there was no compliance with the said requirement and, therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed In llmlne. It was E also pointed out that entry In the Khasra Pahanl and R.O.R. right from 1954-55 Indicated the.suit land as "Sega Local Fund" and tne same was not challenged by the plaintiff or his ancestors. 4. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court found that there was no merit In the suit and accordingly the suit was · F Qismlssed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court upheld . · It. Th~ High Court, as noted' above, reversed the findings and • allowed the second appeal. · 5. At the outset It Is to be Indicated that the Second Appeal ·was allowed without framing a question of law which Is clearly G contrary to the mandate of Section 100. This position has been highlighted In several decisions. (See _Gian Dass v. Parichayat, VIiiage Sunner Kalan_ & _Ors._ (JT ·2ooe (,7).SC 102), _Joseph Severane and Ors. v. Benny Mathew and Ors._ (JT 2005 (8) SC 509), _Saslkumar and Ors. v Kunnath Che//appan Nair an.d_ H 546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 1 S.C.R. ~ A _Ors._ (JT 2005 (9) SC 171 ), _Chadat Singh v. Bahadur Ram and Ors._ (JT 2004 (6) SC 296) and _Kanhaiyala/ v. Anupkumar_ (JT 2002 (10) SC 98). 6. Apart from that it is noted that the judgment of the learned 8[Single ][Judge ][is ][practically ][non-reasoned. ][The ][High ][Court ][in ] second appeal interfered with the findings of facts. Therefore, since the judgment is practically non-reasoned, it is not possible to find out as to what weighed with the High Court to upset the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. We remit the matter to the High Court for c fresh consideration keeping in view parameters of Section 100 CPC. ~ ## 7. The appeal is allowed. No costs. S.K.S. Appeal allowed. D )..- . '