Supreme Court Orders Fresh Look at Property Dispute: Selvi vs. Gopalakrishnan Nair (2018)

Date of the Judgment: May 15, 2018

Citation: [Not Available in Source]

Judges: R. Banumathi, J., L. Nageswara Rao, J.

Can a court proceed with a final decree in a property dispute when the description of the property itself is contested? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a long-standing property dispute, highlighting the critical importance of accurate property descriptions in mortgage redemption cases. The court ordered a fresh trial to ascertain the correct description of the suit property and the rights of the parties involved. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice L. Nageswara Rao, with Justice R. Banumathi authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around a property dispute stemming from a mortgage executed in 1913. The original property, consisting of both Plaint A and B Schedule properties, belonged to Kali Pillai and others. They mortgaged the properties to Kutti Bhagvathi for Rs. 785. This was a usufructuary mortgage with Kuzhikkanam for twelve years. Over time, the mortgage rights were assigned to various individuals, eventually reaching Parameswaran Pillai, who sub-mortgaged a portion of the Plaint B Schedule property to Kesava Pillai Narayana Pillai. The rights of the latter vested with the second defendant.

The first plaintiff, Kalyani Pillai, inherited the equity of redemption of the property. She entered into an agreement to sell the mortgage property to the second plaintiff, Vasudevan Pillai, who later assigned this agreement to Rajayyan, who in turn assigned it to the third plaintiff, Selvi. The suit properties were described as being located in Survey numbers 990, 983/12A, 983/13A, and 983/14A. The second defendant, Gopalakrishnan Nair, contested the suit, claiming ownership of old Survey No. 988 (R.S. No. 123/9) and asserting that the plaintiffs had no right of possession over it.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of
Section 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which states:

“Where any party aggrieved by a preliminary decree passed after the commencement of this Code does not appeal from such decree, he shall be precluded from disputing its correctness in any appeal which may be preferred from the final decree.”

This section deals with the effect of not appealing a preliminary decree on the ability to challenge it during an appeal against the final decree. The Supreme Court also considered the importance of accurate property descriptions in partition suits and the need for a thorough inquiry when disputes arise regarding such descriptions.

Arguments

Second Defendant’s Arguments:

• The second defendant, Gopalakrishnan Nair, contended that old Survey No. 988 (R.S. No. 123/9) belongs to him and is not part of the suit property.
• He argued that the trial court’s order dated 27.04.1998 directed the exclusion of Survey No. 988 from the suit property.
• He objected to the Commissioner’s report, stating that it did not follow the boundary descriptions in his documents and wrongly included Survey No. 988 in the suit property.
• He asserted that the plaintiffs did not amend the description of the suit properties to include Survey No. 988, despite his objections.

Plaintiffs’ Arguments:

• The plaintiffs argued that the second defendant did not appeal against the preliminary decree and therefore could not challenge it during the final decree proceedings.
• They contended that the suit property, as described, included the area claimed by the second defendant.
• They asserted that the Commissioner’s report correctly identified the suit properties and that Survey No. 988 was part of it.

Sub-Submissions of the Parties:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issues that the Court addressed were:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in excluding Survey No. 988 from the suit property based on the second defendant’s claim.
2. Whether the trial court and the first appellate court were justified in rejecting the second defendant’s objections to the inclusion of Survey No. 988 in the final decree.
3. Whether the second defendant’s failure to appeal the preliminary decree precluded him from raising objections in the final decree proceedings.
4. Whether the trial court should have conducted a detailed inquiry into the ownership of Survey No. 988 and the correct description of the suit property.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Court considered the following legal provision:

• Section 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: This section deals with the effect of not appealing a preliminary decree on the ability to challenge it during an appeal against the final decree.

The Court did not rely on any case laws or books in the source document.

Authorities Considered by the Court:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court interpreted Section 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908* to mean that since the description of the suit property did not include Survey No. 988, the second defendant was not precluded from raising objections in the final decree proceedings despite not appealing the preliminary decree.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following:

• The consistent objections raised by the second defendant regarding the inclusion of Survey No. 988 in the suit property.
• The fact that the description of the suit property did not explicitly include Survey No. 988.
• The need for a thorough inquiry into the ownership of Survey No. 988 and the correct description of the suit property.
• The importance of ensuring that all parties have an opportunity to present their case, especially in long-standing property disputes.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

The court’s decision was more influenced by the factual aspects of the case, particularly the dispute over the property description and the second defendant’s objections, than by purely legal interpretations.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and the lower courts, remitting the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration. The court emphasized the need for a detailed inquiry into the ownership of Survey No. 988 and the correct description of the suit property. The court held that the second defendant’s failure to appeal the preliminary decree did not preclude him from raising objections in the final decree proceedings, as the description of the suit property did not include Survey No. 988. The court also clarified that the affidavit filed by the second plaintiff, Vasudevan Pillai, was an afterthought and should not be given any weight.

The Court stated:

• “In view of the stand taken by the second defendant that he is entitled to the adjoining property in Survey No.988 by virtue of the sale deed of the year 1951 and the consistent objections raised by him to the Commissioner’s Report, in our view, in the final decree proceedings, the trial court ought to have directed the parties to adduce evidence to enable the court to ascertain the truth as to the correct description of the suit property and also the right claimed by the second defendant in Survey No.988.”
• “Since the description of the suit property did not contain Survey No.988, the fact that the second defendant did not prefer appeal against the preliminary decree, cannot be put against the second defendant.”
• “In the final decree application I.A. No.120 of 1985, all the three plaintiffs have signed. In the final decree stage, the third plaintiff-Selvi got herself impleaded based on the assignment of right in her favour by Rajayyan who in turn got the assignment from the second plaintiff-Vasudevan Pillai. The third plaintiff-Selvi was pursuing the final decree application. Though the final decree application was pending before the trial court for more than sixteen years and thereafter in the First Appellate Court, Vasudevan Pillai has not raised any objection nor made any grievance against the third plaintiff-Selvi.”

Key Takeaways

• Accurate property descriptions are crucial in partition suits, especially in mortgage redemption cases.
• Courts must conduct a thorough inquiry when disputes arise regarding property descriptions.
• Failure to appeal a preliminary decree does not preclude a party from raising objections in the final decree proceedings if the objections relate to the description of the property itself.
• Parties should not be allowed to raise afterthought claims or objections, especially after a long period of litigation.

Directions

The Supreme Court gave the following directions to the trial court:

• The plaintiffs and the second defendant are at liberty to adduce oral and documentary evidence to substantiate their objections filed to the Commissioner’s Report.
• The trial court is to decide upon the correct survey numbers falling within the description of the suit properties and whether the said suit property within the stated boundaries tally with the properties mortgaged.
• Tallying of boundaries of the properties with reference to documents, if necessary, by reference to revenue records.
• Entitlement of the second defendant-Gopalakrishnan Nair as to Survey No.988 with reference to his documents and also the proceedings before the Executive Magistrate and further revision thereon.
• The trial court was directed to expedite the hearing in the final decree proceedings.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that in a final decree proceeding, the parties are not precluded from raising objections to the description of the property even if they have not appealed against the preliminary decree, if the description of the property is not clear in the preliminary decree. The case also reinforces the importance of conducting a thorough inquiry in cases involving property disputes, especially when there are conflicting claims and objections regarding property descriptions. This case does not change any previous positions of law, but it reinforces the need for accuracy and thoroughness in property litigation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Selvi vs. Gopalakrishnan Nair underscores the critical importance of accurate property descriptions in partition suits and the need for courts to conduct thorough inquiries when disputes arise. By remitting the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration, the Supreme Court ensures that all parties have a fair opportunity to present their case, especially in long-standing property disputes. This case serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in property litigation and the need for judicial diligence in resolving such disputes.