Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned recovery of possession of 12.86 acres of agricultural land in mauza Imlai, Panagar, Madhya Pradesh. The plaintiff, Digamber Jain Praband Karini Sabha, Panagar, a trust registered under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trust Act, 1951, claimed title under a registered gift deed executed on 18 January 1954 by Smt. Rajrani, the fifth defendant, who was the malik maqbooza of the land after abolition of proprietary rights in 1951. The third and fourth defendants, Ram Das and Ballu, were cultivating the land and had earlier been sued by the plaintiff; they pleaded that the appellant, Shikharchand Jain, had sub-let the land to them, and that suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. The appellant had also filed a separate suit in 1955 seeking a declaration that the gift by Smt. Rajrani would be void after her death, but that suit was dismissed in default. In the present suit, the appellant and other defendants except Smt. Rajrani filed a joint written statement denying the plaintiff's title, claiming that Smt. Rajrani held only a limited estate, that the gift was ineffective after her death, and that the appellant had been in possession since 1937 and had acquired ownership by adverse possession. Smt. Rajrani filed a separate written statement supporting the plaintiff. The trial court framed issues, including whether Smt. Rajrani was owner and in possession till 18 January 1954 and whether the appellant had perfected title by adverse possession. The trial court answered the ownership and possession issues in favour of the plaintiff and held that the appellant was in possession for and on behalf of Smt. Rajrani, not in his own right. It decreed the suit for possession. The first appellate court allowed the defendants' appeal, set aside the decree, and dismissed the suit, finding that the appellant had become owner by adverse possession. The plaintiff filed a second appeal in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The High Court reversed the first appellate court and restored the trial court decree, holding that the first appellate court had ignored the statutory presumption of correctness of Khasra entries under Section 80(3) of the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1917, and had misread Exhibit D/1, a plaint in a suit for profits, and had not approached the issue in a proper legal manner. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. Before the Supreme Court, two main questions arose: whether the High Court could interfere with the first appellate court's finding of fact under Section 100(1)(c) CPC, and whether the appellate court should allow amendment of the written statement due to changed circumstances, namely the death of Smt. Rajrani in 1968. The appellant argued that the first appellate court's finding on adverse possession was a finding of fact and the High Court could not interfere; he also sought amendment to claim reversionary rights. The respondent argued that Khasra entries were presumed correct and the appellant had admitted Smt. Rajrani's ownership and paid rent on her behalf till 1958-59, negating adverse possession. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in interfering because the first appellate court overlooked the statutory presumption and misread evidence, constituting a substantial error in procedure under Section 100(1)(c) CPC. The Court also held that courts including appellate courts can take notice of events after institution of suit and allow amendment of pleadings. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the amendment of the written statement, remanded the case to the trial court with directions to give the respondent time to file a reply to the amended written statement, record findings on the new plea, and forward them to the Supreme Court through the High Court within four months of receipt of the record.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Amendment of written statement during appeal due to changed circumstances - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The appellant sought amendment of his written statement after the death of Smt. Rajrani in 1968 to claim reversionary rights as sole reversioner; the Court held that courts including appellate courts can take notice of events after institution of suit and afford relief to parties; amendment allowed and case remanded for trial court to accept reply and record findings on new plea (Paras 10-12). B) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Interference with finding of fact - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 100(1)(c) - The High Court could interfere in second appeal where the first appellate court ignored the statutory presumption of correctness of Khasra entries under Section 80(3) of Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1917 and misread Exhibit D/1; Held that substantial error or defect in procedure justified interference (Paras 4-7). C) Evidence/Revenue Law - Presumption of Correctness of Record of Rights - Khasra entries are record of right and presumed correct unless contrary is shown - Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1917, Sections 45(2) and 80(3) - Khasra entries from 1937-38 to 1951-52 were in favour of Smt. Rajrani, raising presumption of her possession; burden of proving adverse possession was heavy and lay on the party claiming it; Court relied on this to uphold High Court view that first appellate court erred (Paras 5-6). D) Property Law - Adverse Possession - Claim of adverse possession from 1937 - The appellant claimed ownership by adverse possession for more than 12 years from 1937 but Khasra entries were against him and a witness admitted appellant paid rent on behalf of Smt. Rajrani till 1958-59; Court held adverse possession claim failed, referring to Maharaja Srischandra Nandy v. Baijnath Jugal Kishore, Deity Pattabhiramaswamy v. S. Hanymayya, and H.R. Ramachandran Ayyar v. Ramalingam Chettiar (Paras 8-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the first appellate court's finding of fact under Section 100(1)(c) CPC; whether the appellate court could allow amendment of the written statement during pendency of appeal due to changed circumstances i.e. death of Smt. Rajrani.
Final Decision
Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part: it upheld the High Court's interference with the first appellate court's finding, holding that the first appellate court ignored the statutory presumption of correctness of Khasra entries and misread Ex D/1; it allowed the amendment of the written statement due to changed circumstances (death of Smt. Rajrani) and remanded the case to the trial court to permit respondent to file reply, record findings on the new plea, and forward them to the Supreme Court through the High Court within four months of receipt of the record.
Law Points
- The Court
- including an appellate court
- may take notice of events after institution of suit and allow amendment of pleadings
- Khasra entries are record of rights and presumed correct unless contrary shown under Section 80(3) of Central Provinces Land Revenue Act
- 1917
- burden of proving adverse possession lies on party claiming it
- High Court can interfere in second appeal under Section 100(1)(c) CPC if first appellate court ignores statutory presumption and misreads evidence.
