Narayana Gramani & Ors. V Mariammal & Ors.,  CIVIL APPEAL No.5057  OF 2009 Decided on 11/07/2018.

BENCH:  A two-judge bench headed by:-

• Justice [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
• Justice [VINEET SARAN]

decided the appeal filed against the final judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Second Appeal whereby the Single Judge of the High Court allowed the second appeal  and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge and dismissed the suit.

FACTS: The three plaintiffs claiming to be the members of one family filed a civil suit against the defendants for a declaration and permanent injunction in relation to the land (suit land). The plaintiffs alleged that they had been in possession of the suit land, invested money and paying revenue taxes as they got it in their share in the family partition and now defendants were trying to  disturb their possession without any legal authority and were also asserting their title over the suit land which resulted in this case.

The Trial Court decreed the plaintiffs’ suit. It was held that the plaintiffs were able to prove their ownership over the suit land on the   basis of the documents filed by them. The defendants filed first appeal before the Additional Sub­-Judge against that judgement who dismissed the defendants’ appeal and upheld the previous judgement. The defendants filed second appeal in the High Court at Madras which was admitted. The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the two courts and dismissed the suit giving rise to filing of the present appeal by way of special leave in this Court.

ISSUES:

• Validity of the act of the High Court that it allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the two courts below.
• Justification of dismissing the suit giving rise to filing of the present appeal by way of special leave in the Supreme Court.

OBSERVATIONS: Court observed that:-

• The High Court committed an error in allowing the defendants’   second appeal and in dismissing the plaintiffs’ suit.
• The High Court had admitted the second appeal giving the reason that it was not a case of res judicata as the case wasn’t between the same parties. The High Court failed to see that   even if the case wasn’t of a res judicata still plaintiffs’ suit could not be dismissed in its entirety unless the High Court had further examined the main issue of ownership of the plaintiffs over the suit land.
• The High Court committed another error when it failed to frame any substantial question of law on the issue of the plaintiffs’ ownership over the suit land.
• Dismissing the suit was not permissible in the light of Section 100 (5) of the Code, which empowers the High Court to decide the appeal only on the question framed and not beyond it.
• Both the issues of res judicata and ownership had to be examined independent of each other on their respective merits which wasn’t done.

HELD:

• The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgement.
• The case was remanded to the High Court for deciding the second appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law by properly framing the substantial questions of law on the question of ownership of the plaintiffs over the suit land.
• The High Court was requested to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible preferably within 6 months.

For full judgement refer: https://www.supremecourt.gov.in/supremecourt/2007/35474/35474_2007_Judgement_11-Sep-2018.pdf