Supreme Court Remands Property Dispute for Fresh Consideration Due to Procedural Errors

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered its judgment in Surat Singh (Dead) vs. Siri Bhagwan & Ors., highlighting significant procedural lapses in the disposal of a second appeal by the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The Court ruled that the High Court had erred in deciding the appeal without adhering to the mandatory procedure under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), leading to a remand for fresh consideration.

Background of the Case

The dispute originated from a property transaction involving Murti Devi, who along with her daughter, had filed a suit challenging a consent decree obtained by Siri Bhagwan. They alleged that the decree was fraudulently secured, taking advantage of Murti Devi’s illiteracy and poverty.

The trial court ruled against the plaintiffs, but the first appellate court overturned the decision, favoring Murti Devi. Subsequently, Siri Bhagwan filed a second appeal before the High Court, during which Surat Singh purchased the disputed land through a registered sale deed. He was later impleaded in the case as a respondent.

The High Court allowed the second appeal in favor of Siri Bhagwan, but without hearing Surat Singh, who then approached the Supreme Court seeking redressal.

Arguments Presented

Petitioners’ (Surat Singh) Arguments

• The High Court passed its judgment without giving him an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice.
• The judgment was delivered in a procedurally defective manner, as the High Court had not framed substantial questions of law at the admission stage, as required under Section 100 CPC.
• As a bona fide purchaser of the land, he had a vested interest in the case and should have been heard.

Respondents’ (Siri Bhagwan & Ors.) Arguments

• The High Court had rightly ruled in their favor, setting aside the first appellate court’s judgment.
• Murti Devi’s sale of land during the pendency of the appeal was improper, and Surat Singh could not claim better rights than her.
• The High Court’s procedural omissions, if any, were minor and should not lead to remand.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

A bench comprising Justice R.K. Agrawal and Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre ruled that the High Court had committed a serious procedural error, necessitating a remand.

1. Failure to Provide a Fair Hearing

The Court held that failing to hear Surat Singh before deciding the appeal was a violation of due process. It stated:

“The High Court erred in deciding the second appeal much less allowing it without hearing the contesting respondent, and also erred in dismissing his application for rehearing.”

2. Violation of Section 100 CPC

The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court had failed to frame substantial questions of law before deciding the appeal. The judgment stated:

“The High Court was under a legal obligation to frame substantial questions of law at the time of admission of the appeal after hearing the appellant.”

3. Incorrect Approach in Framing Questions of Law

The Court found that the High Court had formulated the substantial question of law only at the time of final judgment, which was impermissible:

“The High Court had no jurisdiction to frame the substantial question at the time of writing its final judgment in the appeal except to the extent permitted under sub-section (5) of Section 100.”

4. Remanding the Case for Fresh Consideration

Due to these fundamental errors, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remanded the case for fresh adjudication:

“The case is remanded to the High Court for deciding the second appeal afresh on merits. The High Court will now frame proper substantial questions of law after hearing the appellant and, if satisfied, formulate such question(s) and hear the appeal on the question(s) framed in accordance with law.”

Key Observations

• The ruling reaffirms the mandatory nature of Section 100 CPC, ensuring that second appeals are heard only on substantial questions of law.
• The judgment emphasizes the necessity of following due process in property disputes, particularly when new parties enter litigation as bona fide purchasers.
• The decision prevents procedural shortcuts in appellate courts, reinforcing fairness in judicial proceedings.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Surat Singh (Dead) vs. Siri Bhagwan & Ors. highlights the importance of procedural correctness in appellate litigation. By remanding the case, the Court ensured adherence to legal principles, upholding fairness and due process in deciding property disputes.

Petitioner Name: Surat Singh (Dead)
Respondent Name: Siri Bhagwan & Ors.
Judgment By: Justice R.K. Agrawal, Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment Date: 19-02-2018

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

Download Judgment: Surat Singh (Dead) vs Siri Bhagwan & Ors. Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 19-02-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod 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 R K Agrawal
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay Manohar Sapre
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2018
See all petitions in 2018 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