Supreme Court Dismisses Review Petition in Bihar Property Dispute Case

The case of Raju Yadav & Ors. vs. Sarju Dusadh & Ors. pertains to a longstanding property dispute in Bihar. The petitioners sought review of a Supreme Court decision that upheld concurrent findings by lower courts. The key issue was whether any substantial question of law arose that warranted a fresh examination by the Supreme Court.

Background of the Case

The dispute involves a piece of land located in Bihar, where the petitioners, Raju Yadav and others, claimed ownership and possession. The respondents, Sarju Dusadh and others, contested this claim, leading to civil litigation. The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents, rejecting the petitioners’ claim. The first appellate court upheld this decision.

Subsequently, the petitioners approached the Patna High Court in a second appeal. However, the High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose that required its intervention.

Special Leave Petition and Review Petition

Unhappy with the High Court’s decision, the petitioners filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP No. 956 of 2021) before the Supreme Court, seeking a review of the High Court’s ruling. The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP, thereby affirming the decisions of the lower courts.

Following this, the petitioners filed a Review Petition before the Supreme Court, contending that there were errors apparent on the record that justified reconsideration.

Arguments by the Petitioners (Raju Yadav & Others)

The petitioners argued that the lower courts and the High Court had overlooked critical evidence supporting their ownership claim.
They contended that the property in question had been in their family’s possession for decades and that the respondents’ claim was based on fraudulent documents.
The petitioners asserted that the High Court failed to frame a substantial question of law, which was required in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
The delay of 160 days in filing the Review Petition was due to unavoidable circumstances, and the petitioners requested that it be condoned.

Arguments by the Respondents (Sarju Dusadh & Others)

The respondents argued that all courts had consistently ruled in their favor based on strong documentary evidence.
They contended that the petitioners were attempting to reopen settled matters without any new legal grounds.
The High Court’s decision to dismiss the second appeal was correct because no substantial question of law arose.
The Review Petition failed to establish any “error apparent on the face of the record,” which is a prerequisite for review under Article 137 of the Constitution.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Uday Umesh Lalit, Hemant Gupta, and S. Ravindra Bhat, examined whether the Review Petition presented any valid legal grounds for reconsideration.

The Court ruled:

“The second appeal was dismissed by the High Court after concluding that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The concurrent view taken by both the courts below was thus affirmed. The Special Leave Petition arising therefrom was dismissed by this Court.”

The Court further noted:

“The grounds taken in the Review Petition do not make out any error apparent on record to justify interference.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled that:

The delay of 160 days in filing the Review Petition was condoned.
The Review Petition was dismissed as it did not disclose any error that warranted reconsideration.
The judgments of the lower courts and the High Court were affirmed.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for civil litigation:

Finality of Concurrent Findings: The decision reaffirms that when multiple courts have arrived at the same conclusion, the Supreme Court will be reluctant to intervene unless a substantial question of law arises.
Limited Scope of Review Jurisdiction: The judgment reinforces that review petitions must demonstrate an error apparent on the face of the record, not just a disagreement with the court’s findings.
Strict Approach to Second Appeals: The ruling clarifies that second appeals under Section 100 CPC must involve a substantial question of law and cannot be used to reappreciate facts.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Raju Yadav & Ors. vs. Sarju Dusadh & Ors. highlights the importance of finality in litigation and the limited scope of review jurisdiction. By dismissing the Review Petition, the Court has reinforced the principle that second appeals must raise substantial legal issues and that settled property disputes should not be reopened without compelling legal grounds.

Petitioner Name: Raju Yadav & Ors..
Respondent Name: Sarju Dusadh & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice Hemant Gupta, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat.
Place Of Incident: Bihar.
Judgment Date: 16-11-2021.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: raju-yadav-&-ors.-vs-sarju-dusadh-&-ors.-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-16-11-2021.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Succession and Wills
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Uday Umesh Lalit
See all petitions in Judgment by Hemant Gupta
See all petitions in Judgment by S Ravindra Bhat
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2021
See all petitions in 2021 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category