Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 721 (HP)

Kumari Monika v. Baldev Raj

2018-04-23

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J —This appeal has been filed by the defendantappellant against the judgment and decree dated 25.08.2008, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kullu, H.P., affirming the judgment and decree dated 06.11.2007, passed by the learned Civil Judge(Senior Division) , Kullu, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents for permanent prohibitory injunction was decreed by restraining the defendants from causing any interference in any manner, whatsoever in the joint ownership and possession of the plaintiffs over the double storeyed house situated over the suit land till partition of the joint suit property. At the same time learned trial Court also decreed the counter claim filed by the defendants in the aforesaid suit for permanent prohibitory injunction by restraining the plaintiffs from carrying out any repair for construction work in the aforesaid house in dispute in any manner or change its nature in any manner till the house in dispute is partitioned in accordance with law, however dismissed the counter claim filed by the defendants for mandatory injunction. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffsrespondents (herein after referred to as the ''plaintiffs'') , are owners in possession of the suit land as described in the plaint. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiffs purchased two storeyed house situated on this land from Smt.Shanti Devi, as she was in exclusive possession of this property by way of family partition, and in this connection sale deed No.1947 dated 25.10, 2005 was executed inter se the parties. It is further averred that the house, having been purchased by the plaintiffs, has been shown by letters "ABCD" as depicted in site plan attached with the plaint. It is further averred that the defendants are also joint owners in possession of the suit land and they have constructed two storeyed house, as has been shown by letters "DCEF" depicted in the site plan attached with the plaint, on their share after partition, adjoining to the property in question. It is further averred that on 18.04.2006, plaintiffs started carrying out repair work of the house in question, but, defendants, who are quarrelsome persons, have started causing illegal interference in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs qua the house in question. It is further averred that on 18.04.2006, plaintiffs started carrying out repair work of the house in question, but, defendants, who are quarrelsome persons, have started causing illegal interference in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs qua the house in question. The plaintiffs averred that they have requested the defendants not to cause illegal interference in their ownership and possession qua the property in question, but in vain. In the aforesaid background, the plaintiffs have sought relief of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants to the effect that defendants be restrained from causing illegal interference in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff''s qua the property in question. 3. Defendants, by way of filing written statement, refuted the claim of the plaintiffs on the ground of maintainability, locus standi, estoppel, and claimed that the present suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. They also filed counter claim against the plaintiffs. On merits, the defendants have admitted that plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land and two storeyed house exists on the suit land, but the defendants denied that said house was in the exclusive possession of Smt.Shanti Devi. It is averred in the written statement that predecessor-in-interest of defendants and proforma defendant, namely; Bir Singh and husband of Smt.Shanti Devi, namely; Amar Dev had been working together in Lahaul & Spiti in the same Department and they were having cordial and family relations with each other. It is averred that the said Amar Dev was sentenced to imprisonment in rape case in the year 1986-87 and he remained in jail till 1993. It is the claim of the defendants that Bir Singh purchased suit land on 24.9.1987 to the extent of half share in his name and in the name of his family members and remaining half share was purchased by him in the name of Smt.Shanti Devi and in this connection, a sum of Rs.49, 500/- was paid. In the year 1989, said Bir Singh constructed two storeyed house on this land by spending huge amount. As, at the relevant time, Amar Dev husband of Smt.Shanti Devi was in jail, Bir Singh permitted Smt.Shanti Devi to live in his house as a family member without payment of rent. After the death of Bir Singh, Smt.Shanti Devi alongwith her family members continued to reside in the aforesaid house. As, at the relevant time, Amar Dev husband of Smt.Shanti Devi was in jail, Bir Singh permitted Smt.Shanti Devi to live in his house as a family member without payment of rent. After the death of Bir Singh, Smt.Shanti Devi alongwith her family members continued to reside in the aforesaid house. However, in the month of August, 2005, Smt.Shanti Devi left the house and in the month of April, 2006, the defendants came to know that Smt.Shanti Devi had sold her share qua the suit land in favour of plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs started causing illegal interference in the property in question. They threatened to dispossess the defendants from the suit property. It is the claim of the defendants that the house in question is in the exclusive possession of the defendants and in this regard the plaintiffs were requested from time to time not to cause illegal interference in the peaceful possession of the defendants qua the property in question, but in vain. It is further claim of the defendants that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs in order to grab valuable portion of the house in question. In the aforesaid background the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. Defendants also filed counter-claim praying therein that in case court comes to the conclusion that house in question is not in the exclusive possession of defendants and that said property is joint and unpartitioned, plaintiffs be restrained from occupying valuable portion of the house in question or damaging the walls of the house or changing the nature of the property in question or causing illegal interference in the peaceful possession of the defendants qua the house in question till this property is partitioned in accordance with law. Defendants also prayed for mandatory injunction by demolition of structure, if any, raised by the plaintiffs during the pendency of the suit over the land in question. 5. Plaintiffs filed a separate written statement qua the counter claim set up by the defendants in which the averments of the counter claim have been disputed and contents of the plaint are re-asserted. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to carry out repairs in the two storeyed house situated over the suit land as prayed for? OPP. 2. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to carry out repairs in the two storeyed house situated over the suit land as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for? OPP. 3. Whether the defendants are the absolute owners of the house situated over the suit land. If so, its effect? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPP. 5. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to maintain the present suit? OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD. 7. Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hands. If so, its effect? OPD. 8. Whether the suit is bad for want of necessary parties? OPD. 9. Whether the defendants are entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction against the plaintiffs by way of counter claim as prayed for? OPD. 10. In the alternative, whether the defendants are also entitled to remove and demolish the construction, if any, found to have been raised by the plaintiffs during the pendency of the present suit by way of mandatory injunction? OPD. 11. Relief." 7. Learned trial Court vide common judgment and decree dated 06.11.2007 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for permanent prohibitory injunction to the effect that the defendants are restrained from causing any interference in any manner whatsoever in the joint ownership and possession of the plaintiffs over the double storeyed house situated over the suit land till partition of the joint suit property and at the same time also decreed the counter claim filed by the defendants in the aforesaid suit for permanent prohibitory injunction to the effect that the plaintiffs are restrained from carrying out any repair or construction work in the aforesaid house in dispute or change its nature in any manner till the house in dispute is partitioned in accordance with law, however dismissed the counter claim of the defendants for mandatory injunction. 8. 8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, whereby suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed and counter claim filed by the defendants-respondents was partly decreed, appellant-defendant filed an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ''CPC'') read with Section 21 of the H.P. Courts Act, 1976 assailing therein judgment and decree dated 06.11.2007 passed by learned Civil Judge(Senior Division) , Kullu in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kullu. 9. Learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kullu vide judgment and decree dated 25.08.2008 dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant-defendant by affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. Learned first appellate Court also affirmed the decreed passed by the learned trial Court in the counter claim. 10. In the aforesaid background, the present appellant-defendant filed this Regular Second Appeal before this Court, details whereof have already been given above. 11. This second appeal was admitted by this Court on 11.12.2008 on the following substantial question of law: "(1) Whether the Ld.Courts below has mis-read the testimony of DW-1 Monika Kumari and thereby concluded that it appears that Shanti Devi was one of the owners of the house?" 12. At this stage, it may be noticed that on 6th March, 2018, the matter was listed before this Court, and attention of Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate, representing the appellant-defendant was invited towards the judgments passed by this Court in RSA No.293 of 2006, titled as Piar Chand & Others vs. Ranjeet Singh & Others and RSA No.41 of 2006, titled as Mohan Singh vs. Inder Singh & Others, wherein following the judgments of Hon''ble Apex Court in Rajni Rani and vs. Khairati Lal and Others , (2015) 2 SCC 682 and Laxmidas Dayabhai Kabrawala vs. Nanabhai Chunilal Kabrawala and others , (1964) AIR(Supreme Court) 11, this Court held that while dismissing the counter claim, Court may or may not draw a formal decree, but, if rights are finally adjudicated, it would assume the status of a decree and same needs to be laid challenge, if any, by way of filing separate appeal affixing required court fee. 13. In view of aforesaid law having been brought to the notice of Mr.Ajay Chandel, learned counsel, representing the appellant-defendant, sought time to go through the same. 13. In view of aforesaid law having been brought to the notice of Mr.Ajay Chandel, learned counsel, representing the appellant-defendant, sought time to go through the same. Thereafter, today i.e. on 17.04.2018, when the matter was listed before this Court, this Court, in view of aforesaid law having been laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court, deemed it fit to frame additional substantial question of law for proper adjudication of the case at hand. The additional substantial question of law is as under:- 1. "Whether the learned First Appellate Court has erred in entertaining the composite appeal having been preferred by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff and decreeing the counter claim preferred by the defendants-respondents that too without affixing separate/ requisite court fee as far as counter claim is concerned. 14. Mr.Chandel, learned counsel representing the appellant-defendant, vehemently argued that the judgments passed by both the Courts below are not sustainable as the same are not based upon the correct appreciation of the evidence adduced on record by the respective parties and as such, same deserve to be quashed and set-aside. Mr.Chandel, further contended that bare perusal of the judgments passed by both the Courts below suggests that evidence led on record by the appellant-defendant has not been read in its right perspective and as such, great prejudice has been caused to the appellant-defendant against whom decree for permanent prohibitory injunction has been passed. 15. Mr.Chandel, while making his submission qua the additional issue having been framed by this Court, contended that genuine and legitimate claim of the appellant-defendant cannot be allowed to be defeated on mere technicalities and this Court has wide power to ignore such technicalities and can proceed ahead to decide the matter on the basis of the evidence adduced on record by the respective parties to do substantive justice in the matter. Mr.Chandel, further claimed that the learned trial Court decreed the counter claim of the appellant-defendant and appellant-defendant rightly preferred composite appeal against the same before the learned District Judge, laying challenge therein to the composite decree passed in the suit as well as in the counter claim. Mr.Chandel, further claimed that the learned trial Court decreed the counter claim of the appellant-defendant and appellant-defendant rightly preferred composite appeal against the same before the learned District Judge, laying challenge therein to the composite decree passed in the suit as well as in the counter claim. He further contended that no appeal, if any, could be filed without there being any decree and as such, appellant-defendant had no option but to file composite appeal, whereby suit of the plaintiffs was decreed and counter claim of the appellant-defendant was not decreed in toto. 16. In the aforesaid background, Mr.Chandel, strenuously argued that the counter claim filed by the appellant-defendant deserves to be decreed after setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. In support of his contention Mr. Chandel, also placed reliance on the judgments of Hon''ble Apex Court in Narhari and others vs. Shanker and others , (1953) AIR(Supreme Court) 419, Gangadhar and another vs. Shri Raj Kumar , (1983) AIR(Supreme Court) 1202, Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders welfare Association(2) versus S.C.Sekar and others , (2009) 2 SCC 784 and B.S. Sheshagiri Setty and others versus State of Karnataka and others , (2016) 2 SCC 123 . 17. Mr.Chandel, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-defendant, vehemently argued that the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned first appellate is not sustainable in the eye of law as the same is not based upon correct appreciation of evidence as well as law on point. Mr.Chandel contended that bare perusal of impugned judgment passed by learned first appellate Court suggests that the same is based on conjectures and surmises and learned first appellate Court has fallen in grave error while affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. 18. Mr.Chandel, forcefully contended that the courts below have mis-read and mis-appreciated the testimony of DW-1 Monika and based its findings merely on surmises, conjectures and presumptions. He further contended that the learned trial Court has wrongly and illegally returned the findings that the respondents-plaintiffs were in possession of the house in dispute. Learned counsel vehemently argued that there is ample evidence on record that Smt.Shanti Devi, who is residing alongwith the appellant-defendant as family member, had left the house in August, 2005, as such, the findings, which are against the evidence on record are liable to be set aside. 19. Learned counsel vehemently argued that there is ample evidence on record that Smt.Shanti Devi, who is residing alongwith the appellant-defendant as family member, had left the house in August, 2005, as such, the findings, which are against the evidence on record are liable to be set aside. 19. Mr.G.R. Palsra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-plaintiffs, supported the judgment passed by the learned first appellate Court. Mr. Palsra, vehemently argued that bare perusal of the judgment passed by the learned first appellate Court suggests that the same is based upon the correct appreciation of the evidence adduced on record by the respective parties and as such, there is no scope of interference, whatsoever, by this Court, especially in view of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Court below. He further contended that the present appeal is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Rajni Rani and another vs. Khairati Lal and Others , (2015) 2 SCC 682 , which was further followed by this Court while passing judgment dated 16.9.2016 in RSA No.293 of 2006. Mr. Palsra also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in Laxmidas Dayabhai Kabrawala vs. Nanabhai Chunilala Kabrawala and others , (1964) AIR(Supreme Court) 11. 20. Mr.Palsra, apart from above, also supported the judgments passed by both the Courts below and vehemently argued that no interference, whatsoever, is warranted in the present facts and circumstances of the case, especially in view of the fact that both the Courts below have meticulously dealt with each and every aspect of the matter. He also urged that scope of interference by this Court is very limited especially when two Courts have recorded concurrent findings on the facts as well as law. In this regard, to substantiate his aforesaid plea, he placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon''ble Apex Court in Laxmidevamma and Others vs. Ranganath and Others , (2015) 4 SCC 264 . 21. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 22. Keeping in view the specific objection with regard to maintainability having been raised by the appellant-defendant in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court, this Court deems it fit to take additional substantial question of law framed by this Court at first instance for adjudication. 23. 22. Keeping in view the specific objection with regard to maintainability having been raised by the appellant-defendant in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court, this Court deems it fit to take additional substantial question of law framed by this Court at first instance for adjudication. 23. Perusal of the counter claim filed on behalf of the appellant-defendants suggests that while filing written statement they asserted counter claim but fact remains that no requisite fee was paid on the aforesaid counter claim. The respondent-plaintiff denied the aforesaid counter claim of the appellant-defendant terming the same to be false and claimed that there was no negligence on the part of the appellant-defendant as claimed in the counter claim. 24. Careful perusal of the trial court record further suggests that respondents-plaintiffs refuted the aforesaid counter claim of the appellant-defendant by way of filing separate written statement. However, the fact remains that learned trial Court after framing issues, as have been reproduced above, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for permanent prohibitory injunction and also partly decreed the cross-objection having been filed by the appellant-defendant. Operative part of the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court read as under:- "For the reasons recorded while discussing issues No.1 to 10 above, the suit of the plaintiffs for permanent prohibitory injunction is hereby decreed to the effect that the defendants are hereby restrained from causing any interference in any manner whatsoever in the joint ownership and possession of the plaintiffs over the double storeyed house situated over the suit land measuring 0-0-6 bigha comprised in Khasra No.2141/2020/1734 of Khata and Khatouni No.873/1151 and land measuring 0-5-0 bigha being 4/16 share out of the total land measuring 1-0-0 bighas comprised under Khasra No.2139/2022/1735 of Khata and Khatouni No.874/1152 incorporated in Jamabandi for the years 2003-04 situated at Phati Balh, Kothi Maharaja Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. till partition of the joint suit property and at the same time the counter claim filed by the defendants in this suit for permanent prohibitory injunction is also decreed to the effect that the plaintiffs are hereby restrained from carrying out any repair or construction work in the aforesaid house in dispute in any manner or change its nature in any manner till the house in dispute is partitioned in accordance with law. However, the counter claim filed by the defendants for mandatory injunction is hereby dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared, accordingly." 25. Careful perusal of aforesaid decree prepared by the learned trial Court while decreeing the suit and accepting the counter claim of the defendants, clearly suggests that proper decree was drawn as far as acceptance of the counter claim filed by the defendants is concerned. 26. Appellant-Defendant, being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree, approached the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kullu, by way of an appeal under Section 96 CPC, laying therein challenge to aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. At this stage, it would be appropriate to reproduce cause title/ head note of appeal preferred by the appellantdefendant before the learned District Judge, Kullu, H.P. which reads thus:- "Civil First appeal under section 96 C.P.C. read with section 21 of the H.P. Courts Act, 1976 against the judgment and decree dated 6.11.2007, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) , Kullu HP in civil suit No.59/2006, titled as Sh.Baldev Raj & Ors. Vs Smt.Sonam Angmo & Ors. with a prayer to set-aside the judgment and decree under appeal and the suit of the respondents No.1 and 2 may be dismissed with cost and the counter claim of the appellant and proforma respondent No.3 may be decreed without any condition in favour of the appellant and proforma respondents No.3 to 5 and against the respondents No.1 and 2." 27. Careful perusal of aforesaid cause title as well as relief claimed in the appeal clearly suggests that appellant-defendant by way of appeal before the learned first appellate Court prayed that her appeal may be accepted with costs and the judgment and decree dated 06.11.2007 passed by learned trial Court be set aside. Appellant-defendant by way of appeal referred hereinabove also prayed that her counter claim may also be decreed without any condition. 28. Before adverting to the submissions having been made on behalf of the learned counsel representing both the parties, it would be appropriate to refer to relevant provisions of law applicable in the present case i.e. Order 8 Rule 6A: "6A. 28. Before adverting to the submissions having been made on behalf of the learned counsel representing both the parties, it would be appropriate to refer to relevant provisions of law applicable in the present case i.e. Order 8 Rule 6A: "6A. Counter claim by defendant.- (1) A defendant in a suit may, in addition to his right of pleading a set off under rule 6, set up, by way of counter claim against the claim of the plaintiff, any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after the filing of suit but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired, whether such counter claim is in the nature of a claim for damages or not: Provided that such counter claim shall not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the court. (2) Such counter claim shall have the same effect as a cross suit so as to enable the court to pronounce a final judgment in the same suit, both on the original claim and on the counter claim. (3) The plaintiff shall be at liberty to file a written statement in answer to the counter claim of the defendant within such period as may be fixed by the court. (4) The counter claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to plaints." 29. Aforesaid provisions of law entitles defendant in a suit to set up counter claim against the claim of the plaintiff in respect of cause of action accruing to him against the plaintiff either before or after filing the suit, but definitely before defendant files his defence or before the time stipulated for delivering the defence is expired. Needless to say that aforesaid right of filing counter claim is in addition to his right of pleading as set up in Rule 6. Further perusal of aforesaid provisions of law suggests that counter claim, if any, filed on behalf of the defendant would be treated as a plaint and same would be governed by Rules applicable to the plaint. Needless to say that aforesaid right of filing counter claim is in addition to his right of pleading as set up in Rule 6. Further perusal of aforesaid provisions of law suggests that counter claim, if any, filed on behalf of the defendant would be treated as a plaint and same would be governed by Rules applicable to the plaint. Similarly, counter claims filed on behalf of the defendant would have same effect as a cross suit so as to enable the Court to pronounce a final judgment in the same suit, both on the original claim and the counter claim. 30. Similarly, Rule 6A(3) enables the plaintiff to file a written statement, if any, to the counter claim filed by the defendant. Rule 6D specifically provides that in case suit of the plaintiff is stayed, discontinued or dismissed, the counter claim filed on behalf of the defendant would nevertheless be proceeded with. 31. Similarly, Rule 6E provides that if plaintiff fails to file reply to the counter claim made by the defendant, the Court may pronounce judgment against the plaintiff in relation to the counter-claim made against him/her, or make such order in relation to the counter-claim as it deems fit. It would be relevant here to refer to Order VIII Rule 6F: "6F. Relief to defendant where counterclaim succeeds.- Where in any suit a setoff or counter-claim is established as a defence against the plaintiffs claim and any balance is found due to the plaintiff or the defendant, as the case may be , the Court may give judgment to the party entitled to such balance." 32. Perusal of aforesaid Order VIII Rule 6F clearly suggests that where in any suit a set-off or counter claim is established as a defence against the plaintiffs'' claim and any balance is found due to the plaintiff or the defendant, Court may give judgment to the party entitled to such balance. Further perusal of Order VIII Rule 6G suggests that no pleadings, if any, subsequent to the written statement filed by a defendant other than by way of defence to set up a claim can be presented except with the leave of Court. 33. Further perusal of Order VIII Rule 6G suggests that no pleadings, if any, subsequent to the written statement filed by a defendant other than by way of defence to set up a claim can be presented except with the leave of Court. 33. Under Order VIII Rule 10 when any party fails to file written statement as required under rule 1 or rule 9 within the stipulated time, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of such judgment a decree shall be drawn up. 34. Careful perusal of aforesaid provisions of law clearly suggests that counter claim, if any, preferred by the defendant in the suit is in nature of cross suit and even if suit is dismissed counter claim would remain alive for adjudication. Since counter claim is in nature of cross suit, defendant is required to pay the requisite court fee on the valuation of counter claim. It has been specifically provided in the aforesaid provisions that the plaintiff is obliged to file a written statement qua counter claim and in case of default court can pronounce the judgment against the plaintiff in relation to the counter claim put forth by the defendant as it has an independent status. As per Rule 6A(2) , the Court is required to pronounce a final judgment in the same suit both on the original claim and also on the counter-claim. 35. In the present case, as clearly emerged from the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, learned trial Court effectively determined the rights of the parties on the basis of counter claim as well as written statement thereto filed by the respective parties and as such it attained the status of decree. It would be profitable here to reproduce definition of the term ''decree'' as contained in Section 2(2) of CPC:- "2.(2) "decree" means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within [1][ * * *] Section 144, but shall not include (a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order, or (b) any order of dismissal for default. Explanation- A decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication completely disposes of the suit. It may be partly preliminary and partly final;" 36. Close scrutiny of aforesaid definition of "decree" clearly suggests that there should be formal expression of adjudication by the Court while determining the rights of the parties with regard to controversy in the suit, which would also include the rejection of plaint. Similarly, determination should be conclusive determination resulting in a formal expression of the adjudication. It is settled principle that once the matter in controversy has received judicial determination, the suit results in a decree, either in favour of the plaintiff or in favour of the defendant. 37. In this regard, it would be appropriate to place reliance on the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Rajni Rani and Another vs. Khairati Lal and Others , (2015) 2 SCC 682 , wherein the Court has held as under:- "16. We have referred to the aforesaid decisions to highlight that there may be situations where an order can get the status of a decree. A Court may draw up a formal decree or may not, but if by virtue of the order of the Court, the rights have finally been adjudicated, irrefutably it would assume the status of a decree. As is evincible, in the case at hand, the counterclaim which is in the nature of a cross-suit has been dismissed. Nothing else survives for the defendants who had filed the counter-claim. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the order passed by the learned trial Judge has the status of a decree and the challenge to the same has to be made before the appropriate forum where appeal could lay by paying the requisite fee. It could not have been unsettled by the High Court in exercise of the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Ergo, the order passed by the High Court is indefensible." 38. It could not have been unsettled by the High Court in exercise of the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Ergo, the order passed by the High Court is indefensible." 38. After perusing aforesaid judgment passed by Hon''ble Apex Court, this Court need not to elaborate further on the issue at hand because Hon''ble Apex Court has categorically held that if by virtue of order of the Court rights have finally been adjudicated, it would assume the status of decree. Hon''ble Apex Court has also stated that Court may or may not draw a formal decree but if rights are finally adjudicated, it would assume the status of a decree. Learned Apex Court has further held that in such like situation order passed by trial Judge has the status of decree and challenge to the same has to be made before the appropriate forum where appeal could lay by paying the requisite fee. 39. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made hereinabove as well as law laid down by Hon''ble Apex Court in Rajni Rani''s case supra, this Court is of the view that learned first appellate Court erred in entertaining the composite appeal having been preferred by the appellantdefendant laying therein challenge to the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents as well as partly decreeing the counter claim preferred on behalf of the appellant-defendant. Appellant-defendant being aggrieved with the rejection of his counter claim ought to have filed separate appeal by affixing separate court fee and, as such, composite appeal, laying therein challenge to both, decreeing the suit of plaintiff and rejection of counter claim of the appellant-defendant, is not maintainable. 40. Though in view of findings returned by this Court qua additional substantial question of law framed hereinabove, other substantial question of law famed at the time of admission of the appeal has become redundant. However, this Court having perused evidence led on record by respective parties, especially deposition made by DW-1 Monika Kumari, sees no illegality and infirmity in the specific finding returned by the Court below that "it cannot be concluded on the strength of ocular version put forth by DW-1 Monika Kumari that Shanti Devi was not having any title in the property in dispute". Substantial question is answered accordingly. 41. Substantial question is answered accordingly. 41. Leaving everything aside, having perused concurrent findings of fact and law recorded by the Courts below, which are based upon proper appreciation of evidence, this Court is persuaded to agree with the contention of learned counsel representing the respondents-plaintiffs that there is no scope left for this Court to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts. This Court finds no perversity as far as findings of fact and law recorded by the Courts below are concerned. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by Hon''ble Apex Court in Laxmidevamma''s case supra, wherein the Hon''ble Apex Court has held as under:- "16. Based on oral and documentary evidence, both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the plaintiffs have established their right in A schedule property. In the light of the concurrent findings of fact, no substantial questions of law arose in the High Court and there was no substantial ground for reappreciation of evidence. While so, the High Court proceeded to observe that the first plaintiff has earmarked the A schedule property for road and that she could not have full-fledged right and on that premise proceeded to hold that declaration to the plaintiffs'' right cannot be granted. In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, concurrent findings of fact cannot be upset by the High Court unless the findings so recorded are shown to be perverse. In our considered view, the High Court did not keep in view that the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, are based on oral and documentary evidence and the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained." (p.269) 42. Aforesaid exposition of law clearly suggests that High Court, while excising power under Section 100 CPC, cannot upset concurrent findings of fact unless the same are shown to be perverse. But, in the case at hand, this Court, while examining the correctness and genuineness of submissions having been made by the parties, has carefully perused evidence led on record by the respective parties, perusal whereof certainly suggests that the Courts below have appreciated the evidence in its right perspective and there is no perversity, as such, in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. Moreover, learned counsel representing the appellant-defendant was unable to point out perversity, if any, in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below and, as such, same do not call for any interference. 43. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, as well as law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court, the present appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. 44. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of.