High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:110763 Court No. - 36 Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 434 of 2024 Appellant :- Bhairamdeen Alias Bhairam Respondent :- Jagdev Prasad And 13 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Anand Mohan Pandey,Tanmay Gupta Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. Heard Shri Anand Mohan Pandey, learned counsel for the
Legal Reasoning
defendant-appellant and perused the record. 2. Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed a suit for dispossession of the defendant-appellant from the property described in the plaint on the ground that the defendant was permitted to reside and keep his goods over the same in June, 2011 with the understanding that when he makes his own arrangements, he would vacate the property, however he has not vacated the same despite notice dated 01.01.2016, whereby licence was terminated and, hence, the suit was filed. 3. The defence of the defendant-appellant was that he had been paying sums periodically to the plaintiff for the last about 25 years and that an oral sale took place in between them and, further, the entire amount agreed between the parties had already been paid to the plaintiff. 4. Both the courts below have decreed the suit holding that possession of the defendant was not according to law and that ownership vested in the plaintiff.
Legal Reasoning
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the courts below have not considered the statement of defendant and even P.W.-2 stated before the trial court that house had been constructed by the defendant for his own residential purposes and that plaintiff had given his land to various persons in lieu of money. He submits that long possession of the defendant for a period of more than 25 years was sufficient proof of vesting of title in him and plaintiff's case of licence and its termination was base- less. He further submits that lower Appellate Court has violated the mandatory provisions of order XLI Rule 31 of Code of Civil Procedure by not framing any point for determination. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and after examining the pleading of the parties and findings recorded by the courts below, the Court is of the view that there is no dispute regarding title of the plaintiff qua the property in dispute. "Oral sale", as pleaded by the defendant-appellant in his favour does not have any recognition under eyes of law. Insofar as some transaction of money in between the parties, as alleged by the defendant-appellant, even if the same is accepted, it would not confer title upon the defendant. One line of the statement of P.W.-2 that the house had been constructed by the defendant would also not be sufficient to confer title on him and the Court finds that the plaintiff's case based upon the plea of licence, which was terminated by giving notice was fully established before both the courts below. 7. Insofar as the plea regarding non framing of point for consideration, the Supreme Court in the case of Laliteshwar Prasad Singh and others vs. S.P. Srivastava (Dead) thru. Lrs.7, (2017) 2 SCC 415, has held that mere omission to frame the points for determination would not vitiate the judgment of the first appellate Court, provided that the first appellate Court recorded its reasons based on the evidence adduced by both parties. 8. Thus, even if the first appellate Court does not separately frame the points for determination arising in the first appeal, it would not prove fatal as long as that Court deals with all the issues that actually arise for deliberation in the said appeal. Substantial compliance with the mandate of Order 41 Rule 31 C.P.C. in that regard is sufficient. In this regard, useful reference may be made to G. Amalorpavam and others vs. R.C. Diocese of Madurai and others (2006) 3 SCC 224, wherein the Supreme Court held as under:- "9. The question whether in a particular case there has been substantial compliance with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC has to be determined on the nature of the judgment delivered in each case. Non-compliance with the provisions may not vitiate the judgment and make it wholly void, and may be ignored if there has been substantial compliance with it and the second appellate court is in a position to ascertain the findings of the lower appellate court. It is no doubt desirable that the appellate court should comply with all the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. But if it is possible to make out from the judgment that there is substantial compliance with the said requirements and that justice has not thereby suffered, that would be sufficient. Where the appellate court has considered the entire evidence on record and discussed the same in detail, come to any conclusion and its findings are supported by reasons even though the point has not been framed by the appellate court there is substantial compliance with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC and the judgment is not in any manner vitiated by the absence of a point of determination. Where there is an honest endeavour on the part of the lower appellate court to consider the controversy between the parties and there is proper appraisement of the respective cases and weighing and balancing of the evidence, facts and the other considerations appearing on both sides is clearly manifest by the perusal of the judgment of the lower appellate court, it would be a valid judgment even though it does not contain the points for determination. The object of the rule in making it incumbent upon the appellate court to frame points for determination and to cite reasons for the decision is to focus attention of the court on the rival contentions which arise for determination and also to provide litigant parties opportunity in understanding the ground upon which the decision is founded with a view to enable them to know the basis of the decision and if so considered appropriate and so advised to avail the remedy of second appeal conferred by Section 100 CPC." 9. The judgments in the case of Laliteshwar Prasad Singh (supra) and G. Amalorpavam and others (supra) have been recently reconsidered by the Supreme Court in the case of Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and others vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 16956-16957 of 2017) decided on 20.05.2024. 10. The Courts finds that the dispute between the parties was with regard to title and nature of possession of the defendant and the same has been thoroughly discussed in so many words by the lower Appellate Court, hence mere non-framing of points for determination will not vitiate its judgment. 11. The findings recorded by the trial court as well as lower Appellate Court are based upon critical examination and analysis of pleadings and oral and documentary evidence. The same being pure findings of fact do not warrant any interference in second appellate jurisdiction of this Court. 12. The second appeal has no merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 8.7.2024 Sazia