Holding

A second appeal filed by a defendant is not maintainable where the first appellate court's findings do not affect the rights among the defendants and no decree was passed against the appellant.

Summary

The plaintiff filed a suit against Defendant No. 4, who claimed title to the land by adverse possession. The trial court dismissed the suit and the defendant did not appeal that decision. The First Appellate Court held that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant had acquired title, and the defendant then filed a second appeal before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the second appeal on the ground that the defendant had neither filed a suit nor obtained any decree against him, rendering the appeal non‑maintainable. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, holding that the second appeal could not be entertained because the first appellate court's findings pertained only to the dispute between the original plaintiff and defendant and did not affect any rights among the defendants, and no decree was passed against the appellant. The Court also rejected the appellant’s attempt to introduce a purported will at this stage and dismissed the appeal without costs.

Issues considered

Whether a second appeal is maintainable when the first appellate court's findings relate solely to the rights between the original plaintiff and defendant and no decree was passed against the appellant
Whether a party can raise a fresh claim of title (e.g., by producing a will) in an appeal that is otherwise non‑maintainable

Subjects

second appealmaintainabilityadverse possessioncivil procedureappeal jurisdictiondecreetitlewillescheat

Judgment

A KRISHNANANDA
v.
KATTU SIVAASHRAMAND ORS.

JANUARY 18, 2007

B [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.]

Appeal-Second appeal-Maintainability-Suit-Plea of adverse
possession by one of the defendants-Title of both plaintiff as well as the
defendant rejected by trial court-No appeal by that defendant-In first
appeal title of that defendant denied-Second appeal by him dismissed-
c On appeal, held: Second appeal by the defendant was not maintainable.

Respondent No. I-Plaintiff filed a suit against defendant No. 4-
Appellant. Appellant claimed title over the land by adverse possession. The
claim of the appellant was negated by Trial Court. Suit was also dismissed.
D ., Appellant did not prefer any appeal thereagainst. In appeal, the First
Appellate Court opined that both respondent-No.I and appellant had not
acquired any title to the property. Appellant filed second appeal thereagainst 1
and the same was dismissed on the ground that appeal was not maintainable
because the appellant did not file any suit regarding his claim nor did trial
court give any relief in that behalf. Hence the present appeal.
E
Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: T~e second appeal filed at the instance of the appellant herein
was not maintainable as the First Appellate Court had merely arrived at
F certain findings which might be relevant for the purpose of determination
of an issue by and between the appellant and the original plaintiff, but the
same were not relevant for determination of an i~sue amongst the defendants
inter se. Moreover, no decree against the appellant was preferred.
[Para 5) [1133-F-G)

G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6196 of2000.

From the Final Judgment and Order dated 20.8.1998 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in S.A. No. 1148/1998.

H Atul Y. Chitale, Suchitra Atul Chitale, Sujeeta Srivastava and Madhup
1132
-~-

KRISHNANANDA v. KATTU SIVAASHRAM [SINHA, J.] 1133

Singhal for the Appellant A
R. Sundaravaradan, Sr. Adv., V.G. Pragasam, S. Vallinayagam, V.
Krishna Murthy, V. Balaj i and A. T.M. Sampath with him for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
S.B. SINHA, J. : l. The defendant No. 4 in the original suit is the
appellant before us. The plaintiff is the first respondent herein. The suit of
the original plaintiff was dismissed. The defendant No. 4 did not prefer any
appeal thereagainst.
c
2. Appellant claimed title over the land by adverse possession. The
said claim was negatived by the learned Trial Judge. The First Appellate
Court, however, opined that both the plaintiff (respondent No. I herein) and
defendant No. 4 (appellant herein) had not acquired any title to the property.

3. Aggrieved by certain findings arrived at by the First Appellate
D
( Court, the appellant preferred a second appeal before the High Court of
Madras which was dismissed summarily. The High Court opined that as
defendant No. 4 did not file any suit nor the Trial Court having given any
relief in that behalf, the appeal was not maintainable.
E
4. The appellant is before us aggrieved by the said order of the High
Court.

5. There cannot be any doubt that the second appeal filed a the
instance of the appellant herein was not maintainable as the First Appellate
_.._ )
Court had merely arrived at certain findings which might be relevant for the
F
purpose of determination of an issue by and between the appellant and the
original plaintiff, but the same were not relevant for determination of an issue
amongst the defendants inter se. Moreover, no decree against the appellant
was preferred.
G
6. It is stated before us by Mr. Sundaravaradan, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4, that in view of the fact that
the aforementioned Raman Pillai died without leaving behind any issue;
escheat proceeding has been initiated. If that be so, there cannot be any
doubt, whatsoever, that the appellant herein would be entitled to raise all H
1134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 1 S.C.R.

A contentions in regard to his title in appropriate proceedings, if initiated ,
..._
.
against him. He may even bring a fresh proceedings against the said
respondent.

7. The appellant has sought to produce before us a purported Will
dated 5.1.1965, executed by the said Raman Pillai. We, however, reject the
B prayer of the appellant to take the said Will on record as the contention that
Raman Pillai bequeathed his entire property in his favour should not be
allowed to be raised before us at this stage for the first time. This appeal
is dismissed with the aforementioned observations. No costs.

C K.K.T. Appeal dimissed.