Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2516 OF 2008

 Haryana State & Anr.         Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Gram Panchayat Village Kalehri Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

                 Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

   1) This  appeal  is  filed  against  the  final  judgment

and  order  dated  18.11.2005  of  the  High  Court  of

Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No. 4083

of 2005 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal

filed by the appellants herein against the order dated

24.08.2005 of the Additional District Judge, Karnal in

1

Page 2

Civil  Appeal  No.  30  of  2005  affirming  the

judgment/decree dated 11.06.2002 of the Civil Judge

(Jr. Division), Karnal in Civil Suit No. 226 of 2001.  

2) In order to appreciate the issues involved in the

appeal, which lie in a narrow compass, few facts need

mention infra.

3) The  appellant-the  State  of  Haryana  is  the

defendant. The respondent-Gram Panchayat of  village

Kalehri is the plaintiff.  

4) The  dispute  in  the  suit  relates  to  the  land

measuring 36 kanals 15 Marlas comprised in Khewat

No. 361 min/350m, Khatoni No. 536 min, Khasra No

59  Gair  Mumkin  Nala  situated  in  village  Kalehri,

Tahsil Gharaunda, District Karnal (hereinafter referred

to as “the suit land").

5) The respondent filed a suit bearing Civil Suit No.

226 of 2001 against the appellants in the Court of Civil

Judge  (Jr.  Division),  Karnal.   The  suit  was  for  a

2

Page 3

declaration that  they are the owner of  the suit  land

and that the appellant (State) have no right, title and

interest in the suit land. The respondent also claimed

prohibitory  injunction  against  the  appellants

restraining  the  State  authorities  from  interfering  in

their  peaceful  possession  over  the  suit  land.  The

respondent based their claim of ownership on several

documents  which,  according  to  them,  exclusively

proved their superior title over every one including the

State.

6) The appellants filed their written statement and

denied the respondent's claim of the ownership. The

appellants then asserted their  ownership rights  over

the  suit  land  to  the  exclusion  of  every  one.   The

dispute  thus  essentially  centered  around  to  the

ownership of the suit land as to who is the owner of

the suit land, viz., the appellants or the respondent.

3

Page 4

7) The Trial Court, on the basis of pleadings, framed

issues.  Both parties  adduced  oral  and documentary

evidence to prove their title over the suit land.

8)  The  Trial  Court  by  judgment/decree  dated

11.06.2002 decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.

On appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties,

it was held that the respondent (plaintiff) is the owner

of the suit land.  Accordingly, injunction, as claimed

by  the  respondent  against  the  appellants,  was  also

granted.  

9) The  appellants,  felt  aggrieved,  filed  first  appeal

being Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2005 before the Additional

District Judge, Karnal.  The first appellate Court vide

judgment dated 24.08.2005 dismissed the appeal and

affirmed the judgment/decree of the Trial Court.  

10) The appellants, felt aggrieved, filed second appeal

being R.S.A. No. 4083 of 2005 in the High Court. The

learned Single Judge  of the High Court, by impugned

4

Page 5

judgment/order,   dismissed  the  second  appeal  in

limine holding  that  the  appeal  does  not  involve  any

substantial question of law as required under Section

100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter

referred  to  as  “the  Code”).  Felt  aggrieved,  the  State

filed  this  appeal  by  way of  special  leave  before  this

Court.  

11) Heard  Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, learned counsel

for the appellants. Though served, none appeared for

the respondent.

12) Having  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the

appellants and on perusal of the record of the case, we

are inclined to allow the appeal and remand the case

to  the  High  Court  for  deciding  the  second  appeal

afresh on merits after hearing both the parties.

13) Learned Single Judge while dismissing the appeal

held as under:

“After hearing learned counsel,  I  am of the considered view that there is no question of

5

Page 6

law  which  would  require  determination  by this  Court  under  Section  100  of  the  Code. The  aforementioned  findings  are  pure findings  of  fact,  which  are  based  on  ample evidence.  Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal.  Dismissed.”

14) In our considered view, the appeal does involve

the  substantial  questions  of  law  and,  therefore,  the

High  Court  should  have  admitted  the  appeal  by

framing  substantial  questions  of  law  arising  in  the

case and then after giving notice to the respondent for

its final hearing as provided under Section 100 of the

Code should have decided the appeal finally on merits.

15) As a matter of fact, having regard to the nature of

controversy and keeping in view the issues involved,

such as the issue regarding ownership rights coupled

with  the  issue  regarding  proper  interpretation  of

documents  (exhibits)  to  prove  the  ownership  rights

over the suit land, we are of the view that these issues

do  constitute  substantial  questions  of  law,  viz.,

whether  the  Courts  below were  justified  in  properly

6

Page 7

interpreting  the  documents/exhibits  relied  upon  by

the parties for determining the ownership rights over

the suit land? In other words, we are of the view that

where the Court is required to properly interpret the

nature of the documents, it does not involve any issue

of fact as such but it only involves legal issue based on

admitted documents.  It is, therefore, obligatory upon

the High Court to decide the legality and correctness of

such findings as to which party’s documents are to be

preferred for conferring title over the suit land. In this

case, the High Court could do so only when it had first

admitted the appeal and framed substantial questions

of law as required under Section 100 of the Code.

16)  The  High  Court  thus,  in  our  view,  committed

jurisdictional  error  when  it  dismissed  the  appeal  in

limine saying that it only involves question of fact.   We

cannot countenance the approach of the High Court.

The impugned order, therefore, is liable to be set aside.

7

Page 8

17) In  view  of  foregoing  discussion,  the  appeal

succeeds and is allowed.  The impugned order is  set

aside. The case is now remanded to the High Court for

deciding the appeal on merits in accordance with law.

18) We request the High Court to admit the second

appeal and frame appropriate substantial questions of

law as are required to be framed under Section 100 of

the  Code,  keeping  in  view  the  documents  (exhibits)

and the findings recorded by the courts below on the

question  of  ownership  in  relation  to  the  suit  land.

Needless to say the questions to be framed should be

specific  with  relevance  to  exhibit  and  errors  in  the

findings recorded by the two courts below so that they

can be properly answered on their merits.

19) Before parting, we consider it proper to mention

here that  we are not  expressing any opinion on the

merits of the controversy but confined our inquiry only

to  examine whether  the  second appeal  involved any

8

Page 9

substantial  question  of  law  within  the  meaning  of

Section 100 of the Code. Since we have held that the

appeal  does involve the substantial  questions of  law

and  hence  we  have  requested  the  High  Court  to

formally  admit  the  appeal  and  frame  substantial

questions  of  law  and  then  answer  them  finally  on

merits in accordance with the law.  

20) There is one more aspect of this case which we

have noticed and we consider it apposite to mention

here.  As is clear, this is a case filed by a statutory

public  body  against  the  Government  and  it  is  in

relation  to  the  ownership  rights  on  a  piece  of  land

which both are asserting against each other.

21) Order 27 of the Code deals with the suits which

are  filed  by  the  Government  or  against  the

Government.  Rule 5B of Order 27 casts a duty on the

Court in a suit filed against the Government to assist

9

Page 10

the parties to the suit in arriving at a settlement.  Rule

5B of Order 27 reads as under:

Order 27 Rule 5B

“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, where  it  is  possible  to  do  so consistently  with  the  nature  and circumstances of the case, to assist the parties  in  arriving  at  a  settlement  in respect  of  the  subject-matter  of  the suit.

(2) If,  in  any such suit  or  proceeding,  at any stage, it appears to the Court that there  is  a  reasonable  possibility  of  a settlement  between  the  parties,  the Court  may adjourn the proceeding for such period as it  thinks fit,  to enable attempts to be made to effect such a settlement.

(3) The  power  conferred  under  sub-rule(2) is in addition to any other power of the Court to adjourn proceedings.”

22) It is clear from the record that no such endeavour

was made by the Court or by the parties to arrive at a

settlement keeping in view the mandate of  Order 27

1

Page 11

Rule 5B quoted above.   In our view, it  should have

been done and only on failure being reported, the case

should  have  been  finally  decided  on  merits  in

accordance with law.   

23) We  now  request  the  High  Court  to  decide  the

second appeal in accordance with law finally on merits

keeping  in  view  the  aforesaid  observations  and,  if

possible, preferably within six months.  

24) Since none appeared for the respondent in this

appeal despite service, we request the High Court to

issue  notice  to  the  respondent  for  final  hearing  the

second appeal before it is heard finally.   

25) Record of the case, if requisitioned, be sent back

to the High Court forthwith by the registry.

                                    .……...................................J.                     [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

                    ………..................................J.                      [ASHOK BHUSHAN]

New Delhi, June 29, 2016.

1