Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2019 DIGILAW 615 (SC)

Paras Ram v. Mahender

2019-02-12

ARUN MISHRA, NAVIN SINHA

body2019
ORDER 1. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for parties at length. 2. Totally misconceived venture was undertaken by the respondent(s). 3. The appellants preferred Regular Second Appeal being RSA No.218/1982 which was compromised in the High Court and the compromise decree was passed. Mutation was undertaken on the basis thereof and the compromise decree was quoted verbatim in the same. 4. Miscellaneous applications being CM-10635-C of 2004 in CM No.2768 of 2004 were filed in the High Court in connection with RSA No.218/1982 in which the High Court has passed order dated 03.07.2009 and has observed as under:- "The present case, i.e. RSA No.218/1982 was decided on the basis of a compromise entered into between the parties, i.e. Param Ram and Sahi Ram sons of Jiai Lal on the one hand and Mohinder Pal, Rishi Raj, Anil, Mukesh and Ramesh sons of Haria on the other. The only record which is relevant in the present case is the consent decree dated 3.12.1987, passed by the High Court in RSA No.218 of 1982. On the basis of said decree mutations have duly been sanctioned. I have carefully perused mutation No.2403 dated 22.4.1994, which clearly shows that mutation is being sanctioned on the basis of judgment and decree of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Agnihotri. The mutation also categorically states that the same is being sanctioned in the presence of Harbans Lal, Lambardar and also in the presence of Mohinder Pal, Rishi Raj, Anil, Mukesh and Ramesh and in the presence of Paras Ram and Sahi Ram. Mutation No.2403 was entered on 17.2.1994 by the Patwari and was accepted by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Ganaur vide order dated 22.4.1994. Thus, from the aforementioned document it is clear that the entire decree as passed by the High Court in RSA No.218 of 1982 dated 3.12.1987, has duly been incorporated in the mutation. Mohinder Pal etc. who were the respondents in the aforementioned RSA had duly acted upon the compromise decree of the High Court for more than 17 years. It is only in the year 2004, after they realized that the records have been burnt in a fire in the High Court that they filed the present applications in the year 2004 for reconstruction of the record. It is only in the year 2004, after they realized that the records have been burnt in a fire in the High Court that they filed the present applications in the year 2004 for reconstruction of the record. It is clear that they are obviously trying to take undue advantage of the destruction of record and are trying to create a false and fictitious record for ulterior motive. Even the report of the District Judge also cannot be relied upon as no original or attested copies of the High Court were produced, but only true copies by the counsel were produced. No certified copies or true copies of the documents were produced and hence no record can be reconstructed on the basis of unauthenticated documents. The only authenticated document in the present case was mutation No.2403 dated 22.4.1994 which clearly states that the mutation is being sanctioned on the basis of High Court judgment and decree dated 3.12.1987. From the above discussion, it is clear that the respondents are trying to unsettle the settled dispute between the parties by trying to have the records reconstructed for ulterior motive which cannot be permitted. In view of the above, it is held that the High Court judgment and decree dated 3.12.1987 has been fully incorporated in Mutation No.2403 which was sanctioned on 22.4.1994, and has been reproduced therein verbatim. Accordingly, I allow C.M. No.10635-C of 2004 in RSA No.218 of 1982 filed by the appellants for recalling the order dated 6.7.2004, and accordingly recall the order dated 6.7.2004, vide which directions were given to the Registry to reconstruct the record of RSA No.218 of 1982. I also dismiss the applications filed by the respondents, i.e. CM No.2768-C of 2004 in RSA No.218 of 1982 for reconstruction of the record." 5. As against the order passed by the High Court, SLP [C] CC No.10219/2010 was filed in this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 16.07.2010. 6. Unfettered by the aforesaid order of the High Court and the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, the trial Court had been approached by way of filing of a Civil Suit No.92/2004 for declaration of title and permanent injunction in order to get rid of the compromise decree on the basis of which mutation had been made. The following prayer was made: "27. The following prayer was made: "27. Now plaintiffs pray that a decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are absolute owners in possession of the land comprised in 14 14 14 4/2 5 6 7 8/2 12/2 18 9/2 13 17/2 6-5 7-4 6-18 7-10 5-2 4-0 8-0 5-2 8-0 2-8 38 39 60 39 10 6/1 7 2 3 4 5/2 8 9 6/2 8-0 7-16 4-0 8-0 6-16 8-0 4-0 6-16 8-0 0-4 Out of 8- 0 Khewat No.95/82 min.Khata No.157, rect.and killa no.14/15(6-4), out of (8-0), 60/12(7-13) khewat No.96, Khata No.158, Rect.and Killa No.91/12(4-0), Khewat No.213/193 min.khata No.389, 391 Rect. And killa Nos.39 43 39 14 17 24/2 3/2 4 8/1 24/1 8-0 8-0 5-4 0-18 7-7 2-0 2-16 and Khewat 43 NoK.214/193 min. Khata No.392 Rect.and Kila Nos.39 18 23 3/1 8-0 8-0 6-9 Total measuring 196 K-13 M situate in the revenue estate of village Ghasoli, Tehsil Ganaur, Distt. Sonepat as per jamabandi for the year 1997-98 and the defendants have no right, or concern whatsoever, with the same may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. It is further prayed that the defendants No.1 and 2 be declared to be owners of the land comprised in Khewat No.94/82 Min. Khata No.155, rect. And Killa No.15/11/1 (6-4), 39/7(4-0), 60/18(6-5), Khewat No.95/82 min. Khata No.157, rect. And kila No.14/15(1-16), 39/8(0-8), 60/13(6-16), Khewat No.213/193 min, Khata No.390, rect.and Killa No.43/8/1 (6-12), 15/19/2(1-4), 20(8-0) situate in the revenue estate of village Ghasoli, Tehsil Ganaur, District Sonepat and the defendants Nos.3 to 6 be declared, owner of the land comprised in Khewat No.95/82 min. Khata No.157, rect.and kila No.39/8 to the extent of 7K-12M and the defendants No. 3 to 7 be also declared owners of the land comprised in Khewat No.214, Khata No.392, rect and Kila No.39/13(8-0) situate in the revenue estate of Village Ghasoli, Tehsil Ganaur, District Sonepat. Khata No.157, rect.and kila No.39/8 to the extent of 7K-12M and the defendants No. 3 to 7 be also declared owners of the land comprised in Khewat No.214, Khata No.392, rect and Kila No.39/13(8-0) situate in the revenue estate of Village Ghasoli, Tehsil Ganaur, District Sonepat. It is further prayed that a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the land stated above which has fallen to their share as per the judgment and decree of the Hon'ble High Court and compromise dated 25.11.1987 in Second Regular Appeal NO.218 of 1982 and also restraining them from alienating or encumbering any portion of the suit land belonging to the plaintiffs may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. Cost of the suit be awarded and any other relief which this learned Court deems proper in the given circumstances be also granted to the plaintiffs as against the defendants." 7. The trial Court by the judgment and decree dated 6.8.2010 dismissed the Civil Suit filed by the respondents and in the First Appeal the judgment and decree of the trial Court had been affirmed. 8. However, in the Second Appeal the High Court has decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff respondent. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 10. In our considered opinion, the High Court was bound to observe judicial discipline. The High Court has clearly transgressed its judicial powers in the instant matter. It was bound by the earlier order passed in CM 10635-C of 2004 in CM No.2768/2014 in RSA No.218/1982. After the aforesaid decision of the High Court on merits, there was absolutely no ground to interfere in the matter that too in a suit filed after a delay of more than 16-17 years. It was totally a misconceived venture by the High Court. The High Court ought to have observed a little carefulness. The way in which the High Court has decreed the suit indicates that the High Court has totally disregarded the rights of the parties which had been concluded in 1982 and the judgment had attained finality. We are not at all happy with the way in which the impugned judgment has been passed by the High Court. The way in which the High Court has decreed the suit indicates that the High Court has totally disregarded the rights of the parties which had been concluded in 1982 and the judgment had attained finality. We are not at all happy with the way in which the impugned judgment has been passed by the High Court. A wholly justified judgment and decree passed by the trial Court affirmed by the First Appellate Court was set aside by the High Court without any good reason and without adverting to the various questions. We are shocked by the way in which the High Court has passed the order ignoring various aspects. 11. In these circumstances, the appeal stands allowed. We unhesitatingly set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court. The judgment and order of the trial Court is restored. 12. However, as the appellants have been dragged in the frivolous litigation that too after more than 16-17 years, we direct the respondents to pay cost of Rs.1 lakh to the appellants and report compliance to this Court within a period of three months from today. 13. The Civil Appeal is accordingly allowed.