Summary
Plaintiffs claiming ownership of agricultural land in Bhiwani, Haryana sued for declaration and possession, alleging that their tenant had sub-let to his son. The trial and first appellate courts dismissed the suit and decreed the defendants' counter-claim to two additional plots. In second appeal, the High Court upheld the dismissal but decreed two plots in the plaintiffs' favour because the defendants had made no counter-claim to them. The Court held that in Haryana second appeals are governed by Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, so no substantial question of law need be formulated. Decreeing plots on the absence of a counter-claim wrongly relieved the plaintiffs of their burden of proof. The counter-claim, unrelated to any claim by the plaintiffs, was barred by Order VIII Rule 6A CPC. The decree on the two plots was set aside.
Issues
- Whether a High Court hearing a second appeal from Haryana must formulate a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC, or whether Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 governs.
- Whether plaintiffs who failed to prove title could be decreed plots merely because the defendants made no counter-claim to them.
- Whether a counter-claim to land not claimed by the plaintiffs is maintainable under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC.
Provisions considered
- Section 41, Punjab Courts Act, 1918Following Pankajakshi, this provision, pari materia with the unamended Section 100 CPC, continues in force in Haryana. A second appeal there needs no formulated substantial question of law, but is still confined to questions of law. (¶¶ 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15)
- Order VIII Rules 6A and 6C, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908A counter-claim lies only against the plaintiff's claim. A counter-claim to plots not forming part of the suit property and unrelated to any claim by the plaintiffs was barred and rightly rejected. (¶ 16)
Held
- Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, not Section 100 CPC, governs second appeals arising from Haryana. It was neither repealed by Section 97 of the 1976 Amendment Act nor rendered repugnant under Article 254. It continues under Article 372 and the Punjab Re-organisation Act, 1966, so the High Court need not formulate a substantial question of law. (¶¶ 9, 11, 12, 13, 14)
- Even under Section 41, a second appeal lies only on questions of law. It is not a forum for re-appreciating facts found concurrently by the trial and first appellate courts. (¶ 15)
- The plaintiffs bore the burden of proving their claim and had failed to do so, while the defendants had generally denied it for all plots. The defendants' failure to counter-claim particular plots did not entitle the plaintiffs to a decree for them, so the High Court erred in decreeing those two plots. (¶ 15)
- A counter-claim under Order VIII Rule 6A, though it may rest on an independent cause of action, must be against the plaintiff's claim. The defendants' counter-claim to plots that were not part of the suit property and that the plaintiffs never claimed was barred, and the High Court rightly rejected it. (¶ 16)
Result
Appeal disposed of. The High Court's decree in the plaintiffs' favour on the two plots is set aside, and the rejection of the defendants' counter-claim is upheld.