Holding

The Supreme Court held that the three identified questions are prima facie substantial questions of law and remitted the matter to the High Court for determination.

Summary

The case concerns a 3.23‑acre parcel that formed part of a religious and educational trust whose trustees (the appellants) sought to retain ownership after the Government issued an ejectment notice under s.248 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code in 1969. The Sub‑Divisional Officer, exercising powers under s.57 of the MP Land Revenue Code, declared the trustees as Bhumiswami in 1974 and the Tehsildar restored possession to them, but the respondent’s father, Siddhanath, contested this order in several revenue appeals, all of which were dismissed. Siddhanath later filed a civil suit for declaration of title and injunction, which was dismissed in 1983 under Order XI Rule 21 CPC for failure to comply with a discovery order; no further appeal was taken, rendering that dismissal final. Subsequently Siddhanath filed another suit alleging adverse possession, concealing the earlier suit and its dismissal, and the trial court decreed in his favour. The appellants appealed, raising six questions, of which the Supreme Court held that three (whether the decree could be made without challenging the revenue authority’s restoration order, whether the claim of possession was in his own right or by adverse possession, and the maintainability of the suit in view of the earlier dismissal) are prima facie substantial questions of law. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s dismissal of the s.100 CPC appeal and remitted the matter for fresh consideration of those questions. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether a decree can be passed without first challenging the revenue authority’s decision restoring possession to the appellant.
Whether the plaintiff’s claim of possession is in his own right or based on adverse possession.
Whether the suit is maintainable given the dismissal of the earlier suit under Order XI Rule 21 CPC.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order VI Rule 17, s. Order XIII Rule 10, s. Order XI Rule 21, s. s.100
Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Codes. s.248

Subjects

adverse possessiondeclaration of titleinjunctionreligious trustgovernment ejectmentsubstantial question of lawCivil appeal under s.100 CPCOrder XI Rule 21 CPC

Judgment

A ZAMINDAR DHARMIK AND SHEKSHNIK NYAS -\.,
v.
SIDDHANATH (DEAD) BY LRS.

MAY22,2007
\

B [DR. ARIJITPASAYAT AND LOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:

s.100-Earlier suit for declaration of title and for injunction by
c respondent-Dismissed-Present suit filed by respondent on the ground of I

adverse possession by concealingfact of dismissal of earlier suit-Question F
raised in second appeal as to whether courts below were right in accepting
respondent's claim of possession in his own right or adverse possession-
Held: Is substantial question of law deserving decision on' merits.
D
The dispute relates to the land which was part of a religious trust, of
which appellants were trustees. Respondent·was vegetable vendor who -t-
collected vegetable from the land on contract from trust. In 1969, Government
issued a notice for ejectment under s.248 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, claiming
the land to be land of the Government and dispossessed the appellantsi The
E appellants filed application for adjudication of tight and title before the Sub-
divisional Officer. The Sub-divisional Officer passed order dated 19.9.1974
declaring the appellant as Bhumiswami of the land in dispute. Thereafter·
appellant filed an application for restoration of possession which was allowed
by Tehsildar. The Patwari went to.the spot and fourid respondent in possession
of the land.
F . ..(

Plantiff-respondent filed an appeal challenging the order dated
19.9.1974 which was dismissed. The revisions were also dismissed.
Thereafter respondent filed civil suit for declaration of title and for injunction
against the appellant. The appellant filed an application for discovery of
G documents. The respondent did not file the said documents and the said suit
was dismisseJ on 17.8.1983.

No further appeal or revision or any other proceedings against the said
order were opted and thus this decision became final. Thereafter Respondent
not deterred by previous orders, filed present suit claiming adv~e possession.
II 758
ZAMINDAR DHARMIK AND SHEKSHNIK NYAS v. SIDDHANATH (DEAD) BY LRS. [PASAYAT, J.) 759

Respondent concealed the institution of his previous suit as well as the order A
of its dismissal dated i7.8.1983.

The state authorities in collusion with respondent admitted that the
respondent was in possession since 1950. The appellants could not submit
the relevant documents of the ownership of the land, however, filed some
documents and memorandum of appeal presented by respondent which was B
taken on record.

I The trial Court decreed the suit. The first appellate Court dismissed
the appeal In the memo of appeal, questions formulated were "(i) Whether
the Courts below have not erred in decreeing plaintiff-respondent's suit; (ii)
Whether the plaintiffs claim could be decreed without there being any c
challenge to the decision of the Revenue Authorities for restoration of
possession to the appellant; (iii) Whether the Courts below are right in
accepting the plaintiffs claim of possession in his own right or adverse
possession; (iv) Whether the First Appellate Court was right in rejecting the
applications, I.A. 5 and I.A. 6; (v) Whether the decisions are rendered by· D
wrongly placing burden of proof on the appellant The High Court dismissed -
.)-
the appeal filed under s.100 CPC holding that no substantial question of law
is involved. Hence the present appeal.

Allowing the appeal and remitting the matt~r to High Court, the Court
E
HELD: The questions (ii), (iii) and (vi) are prima fade substantial
questions of law which need to be adjudicated. (Para 3011764-Fl

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5835 of2000.

From the Final Judgment and Order dated 05.08.1999 of the High Court F
). of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore in Civl Second Appeal No. 191
of 1999.

Nagendra Rai, Sr. Adv., R.K.Singh, Ansul Raj and Sushi! Kumar Jain for
the Appellant.
G
B. Sunita Rao, Sudhir Nandrajog, K.A. Singh, and C.D. Singh for the
Respondents.

) The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

~
DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. I. Challenge in this appeal is tO the order H
760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 7 S.C.R.

A passed by a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court -t.
dismissing the civil appeal filed by the appellant under Section 100 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'CPC' ). The appeal was dismissed
summarily at the admission stage holding that no· substantial question of law
is involved.

B 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that several questions
of law are involved.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent on the' other hand submitted that
there is no substantial question of law involved.

c 4. Background facts in a nutshell as projected by appellant are as
follows:

5. The present case relates to a land measuring 3.23 acres belonging to
the ancestors of Rao Niha Karan Jamindara Bada Ravala of Indore and later
D on was a part of a religious and educational trust. The appellants are its .
trustees. The land in dispute is an important place where the appellant trust
is carrying out annual Dussehra Puja even prior to independence. The Zamindar :i' ·
family used to perform puja from generation to generation. There was no
dispute whatsoever raised about the said land upto 1969. The respondent was
merely a vegetable seller who used to collect vegetables and.fruits from the
E land on contract from the trust.

· '"'"' 6. In 1969, Government issued a notice for ejectment under Section 248
of the M.P. Land Revenue Code (in short 'the Code') claiming the land to
be a land of the Government and the appellant was dispossessed.

F 7. The Panchnama dated 12.6.1975 shows that the land in dispute was
;.(
handed over to the Government by none else than the father of the respondents
herein i.e. the original plaintiff Siddhanath.

8. An application for adjudication of right and title of the appellant was
made before the Sub Divisional Officer, Indore, who was a competent authority
G under Section 57 of the Code.

9. Section 57 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code reads as under:

"57. State ownership in all lands. - (I) All lands belong to the State
Government and it is hereby declared that all such lands, including
H standing and flowing water, mines, quarries, minerals and forests
ZAMINDAR DHARMIK AND SHEKSHNIK NYAS v. SIDDHANATH(DEAD) BY LRS. [PASAYAT.J.) 761

reserved or not, and all right in the sub-soil of any land are the A
property of the State Government:

Provided that nothing in this section shall, save as otherwise
provided in this Code, be deemed to affect any rights of any person
subsisting at the time of coming into force of this Code in any such
property. B
(2) Where a dispute arises between the State Government and any
person in respect of any right under sub-section (1) such dispute
shall be decided by the Sub-divisional Officer.

(3) Any person aggrieved by any order passed under sub-section C'
(2) may institute a civil suit to Contest the validity of the order within .
a period of one year from the date of such order.

3-a) (a) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) no Civil Court shall, in a civil suit instituted
under sub section (3) on or after 24th October, 1983, by order of D
temporary injunction disturb the person to whom possession is restored '
under section 250 if such person furnishes a reliable surety to
recompensate the aggrieved party against any loss in case the Civil
Court grants a decree in favour of the aggrieved :

Provided that no surety shall be required to be furnished by a E
member of a tribe declared to be an aboriginal tribe under sub-section
(6) of Section 165;

(h) Where a Civil Court by an order of temporary injunction
disturbed the person referred to in clause (a) on or after 24th October,
1983 but before the publication of Revenue Department's Notification F
No. I-70-VII-N-2-83, dated 4th January, 1984 such order shall abate on
such publication and the Tehsildar shall restore possession to a
person who is disturbed by such order.

(4) Where a civil suit has been instituted under sub-section (3)
against any order, such order shall not be subject to appeals or G
1

revision."

10. The Sub-divisional Officer decided the title and declared the appellant
as Bhumiswami of the land in dispute and also held that the land was being
)
used for Dussehra Puja by the appellant.
H
762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 7 S.C.R.

A 11. In pursuance of the application for restoration of possession in view
of the aforesaid order dated 19.9.1974, the Tehsildar ordered restoration of ~
possession to the appellant. In pursuance of the said order of the Tehsildar,
the Patwari went _to the spot arid-made a report that the place was in possession
of the plaintiff/respondent's father Shri Siddhanath. The appellant; therefore,
B applied for an order before the Tehsildar. The Tehsildar on the one hand
passed an order seeking clarification from the Board of Revemie about the
area of the land and at the same time served a copy of the appellant's
application to Sri Siddhanath, father of the Respondent.

12. Siddhanath filed an appeal challenging the order dated 19.9.1974
C which was dismissed.
13. Aggrieved by the order of the Collector, Siddhnath, father of the
respondent filed a revision before the Commissioner (Land Revenue) which
was also dismissed on the ground of limitation.

D 14. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, Si<fdhanath, father of
respondent filed revision before the Board of Revenue.

15. The Board of Revenue, vide its order dated 26.8.1982 also dismissed ,,\
the said revision filed by the father of the respondent.

E 16. Siddhnath, father of the respondent, in the meanwhile filed a civil
suit No.259A/J 98 I for declaration of title and for injunction against the appellattt
and Rao Nihal Karan much after the expiry of one year from the date of order
of Sub-Divisional officer dated 19.9.1974. The suit was thus barred under
Section 57(3) of the M.P. Land Revenue Act, 1959 (in short the 'Act').
However, in the said suit the appellant filed an application for discovery of
F documents. The father of the respondent did not file the said documents and
the said suit was dismissed on 17.8.1983 under Order XI Rule 21 CPC. Order
XI Rule 21 CPC reads as under:

"Order XI. Discovery and Inspection.

G Rule 21. Non-compliance with order for discovery - (I) Where any
party fails to comply with any order to answer interrogatories, or for
discovery or inspection of documents, he shall, if a plaintiff, be liable
to have his suit dismissed for want of prosecution, and, if a defendant,
to have his defence, if any, struck out, and to be placed in the same
1.
position as if he had not defended, and the party interrogating or
H seeking discovery or inspection may apply to the Court for an order
ZAMINDAR DHARMIK AND SHEKSHNIK NYAS v. SIDDHANATH (DEAD) BY LRS. [PASAYAT. J.) 763
to that effect and an order may be made on such application A
,.k- accordingly, after notice to the parties and after giving them a reasonable
'

opportunity of being heard.

(2) Where an order is made under sub-rule(l) dismissing any suit,
the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit on the same
cause of action." B
17. No further appeal or revision or any other proceedings against the
said order were opted and thus this decision became final under Section 57
:J of the Act.

18. Siddhnath, father of the respondent, not deterred by previous orders, c
filed present suit without making the appellant or Rao Nihal Karan as a party
to. the said suit. In the said suit Siddhnath claimed adverse possession
against the State ofM.P. as will be evident from para 8 of the plaint. Respondent
concealed the institution of his previous suit dated 21.12.1981 as well as the
order of its dismissal dated 17.8.83.
D
19. Appellant herein who was not made a party, applied for being made
h a party which was allowed and the appellant was arrayed as Defendant No.3.

· 20. The State authorities in collusion with the respondent filed written
statement and admitted that the respondent was in possession since 1950.
E
21. As the appellant is a religious and charitable trust, the trustees
could not collect the relevant documents of the ancestors of Zamindara Bada
Ravala nor could timely lead the evidence. However, the appellant filed some
documents and memo of appeal presented by Siddhnath which was allowed
to be taken on record.
F
-,. ·\, 22. Thereafter the appellant filed an application under Order XIII Rule
10 for proving the Memo of Appeals filed against the order dated 19.9.1974
in which the respondent specifically took the plea that he was in possession
on behalf of the appellant.
G
23. The trial Court rejected the said application.

24. The appellant also filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 for
amendment of the written statement for inserting very important facts including
Ul~ f~~t lhv.t the dismissal order dated 17 .8.83 of the previous suit make the
present suit as not maintainable. The same was also rejected. H
764 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 7 S.C.R.

A 25. The trial Court vide judgment and order decreed the said suit on
31.1.1997.

26. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, the appellant herein
filed first appeal before the Additional District Judge, being First Appeal No.3
of 1997.
B
27. The Illrd Additional District Judge, Indore vide its order dismissed
the first appeal on 3 0. I. 1999.

28. Second appeal was filed which as noted above was dismissed.

29. In the Memorandum of appeal following questions were formulated
C by the appellant:

(i) Whether the learned Courts below have not erred in decreeing
plaintiff-respondent's suit?

(ii) Whether the plaintiffs claim could be decreed without there being
D any challenge to the decision of the Revenue Authorities for
restoration of possession to the appellant?

(iii) Whether the learned Courts below are right in accepting the -1\
plaintiffs claim of possession in his own right or <.dverse possession?
'
(iv) Whether the learned First Appellate Court was right in rejecting
E the applications, I.A. 5 and I.A. 6?

(v) Whether the decisions are rendered by wrongly placing burden of
proof on the appellant?

(vi) Whether the suit of the plaintiff was maintainable in view of the
dismissal under Order XI Rule 21 of his earlier Suit No. 359/81?
F
30. In our considered view the questions (ii), (iii) and (vi) are prima facie
substantial questions of law which need to be adjudicated. Accordingly we
set aside the order of the High Court and remit the matter to it for hearing
the second appeal on the questions (ii), (iii) and (vi) as quoted above. We
make it clear that though prima facie there appears to be substantial questions
G of law, the High Court shall be free to decide the matter in accordance with
law.

31. Appeal is allowed without any orders as to costs.

D.G. Appeal allowed.
H