Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal for Lack of Grounds. New Plea of Adverse Possession Not Raised in Lower Courts or Original Petition.

  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved a civil appeal filed by the appellant against the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District and others. The appellant sought to raise a plea of adverse possession for the first time before the Supreme Court, relying on a previous order from another civil appeal. However, the court noted that the appellant had not amended the original petition nor raised this issue in the lower courts, including the High Court. The court found no grounds to allow the appellant to introduce this new plea at this stage. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal, stating that it was not a fit case for exercising discretionary power under Article 136 of the Constitution. The dismissal was made with no order as to costs, and any interim orders were vacated.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Discretionary Power - Limitation on Raising New Pleas - Constitution of India, Article 136 - The court held that the appellant could not raise the plea of adverse possession as it was not presented in the original petition or before the lower courts. The absence of any amendment or prior mention of this plea led to the dismissal of the appeal. Held that the appeal was not fit for consideration under Article 136 (Paras 1-2).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appellant could raise the plea of adverse possession at this stage.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal with no order as to costs, stating it was not a fit case for exercising discretionary power under Article 136.

Law Points

  • Discretionary power under Article 136
  • adverse possession
  • amendment to petition
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2008 LawText (SC) (11) 84

Civil Appeal No. 6262 of 2003

2008-11-06

Tarun Chatterjee, V.S. Sirpurkar

M. Venugopal

Dy. Commissioner, Chitradurga District & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeal regarding the plea of adverse possession.

Remedy Sought

The appellant sought to raise a new plea and have the matter sent back for fresh determination.

Filing Reason

The appellant relied on a previous order to introduce a new legal argument.

Previous Decisions

The plea of adverse possession was not raised in the lower courts.

Issues

Whether the appellant could raise the plea of adverse possession at this stage.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued for the introduction of a plea of adverse possession. The court noted the absence of this plea in previous proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court emphasized that new pleas cannot be raised at the appellate stage if not previously presented in lower courts.

Judgment Excerpts

this is not a fit case for entertaining the appeal the appellant may be permitted to raise the plea of adverse possession

Procedural History

The appeal was filed after concurrent orders from three lower courts.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 136
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Petitioners' Seniority in Service Matter — Quashes Retrospective Appointment of Respondent.
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging KIADB's Resumption of Allotted Land for Non-Compliance with Allotment Conditions. Petitioner failed to establish industry within stipulated period and sought repeated extensions without subs...