Supreme Court Upholds Partition Decree, Emphasizes Convenience in Land Allotment: Mallanagouda vs. Ninganagouda (2021) INSC 157 (12 March 2021)

Case Background

The case originated from a suit filed by Ranganagouda Patil, seeking partition and separate possession of joint family properties. Ranganagouda, the husband of Appellant No. 2 and father of Appellants No. 1 and 3, sued his brothers (Defendant Nos. 1 to 6), sisters (Defendant Nos. 7 and 8), and mother (Defendant No. 9). The dispute arose after the death of their father, Veeranagouda Channappagouda Patil, in 1981. Ranganagouda claimed that he had moved out and started working separately due to a quarrel with his father, approximately 15 years before filing the suit.

The defendants, however, contended that a partition had already occurred during Veeranagouda’s lifetime, and Ranganagouda had been compensated monetarily for his share. They claimed that he was residing separately and thus not entitled to a further share in the joint family properties.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Third Additional Civil Judge, Dharwad, partly decreed the suit on 16.11.2002, granting the Plaintiff a 1/8th share of the suit properties, except Block No. 163. The court also directed an inquiry for mesne profits during the final partition. The final decree petition was partly allowed on 28.11.2012, granting the Plaintiff a 1/8th share in Schedule A properties in Block No. 5, along with mesne profits of Rs. 4,89,350/-.

The Defendants appealed the final decree. The Second Additional District Judge upheld the Trial Court’s decision, except for Schedule D property, on 07.08.2015. Dissatisfied, the Defendants filed a Regular Second Appeal before the High Court. The High Court, at the admission stage, set aside the judgments of both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court to reconsider the allotment of shares in Block No. 5.

Legal Framework

The case involves several provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC):

• Order 20 Rule 18, CPC: This rule deals with decrees in suits for partition of property or separate possession of a share. It outlines the procedure for passing a preliminary decree and a final decree in such cases.
• Order 26 Rule 9, CPC: This provision allows the court to appoint a commissioner to conduct a local investigation, which can be helpful in cases involving property boundaries or physical characteristics.
• Order 41 Rule 27, CPC: This rule pertains to the production of additional evidence in appellate courts. It specifies the conditions under which an appellate court can allow a party to produce additional evidence that was not presented in the trial court.
• Section 100, CPC: This section defines the scope of second appeals to the High Court. It states that a second appeal can only be filed on a substantial question of law, and not on factual findings.

Arguments

Appellants’ (Plaintiff’s) Arguments:

• The High Court erred in interfering with the First Appellate Court’s judgment, which is the final court on facts.
• The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) by setting aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court.
• The High Court reversed the judgment of the First Appellate Court based on facts contrary to the evidence on record.

Respondents’ (Defendants’) Arguments:

• The High Court rightly held that the land in Block No. 5 has non-agricultural potentiality.
• Allotting the entire Block No. 5 to the Appellants would cause serious prejudice to the Respondents.
• The land allotted to the Appellants in Block No. 5 is situated adjacent to a busy road.
• Partition of properties should not be lop-sided, benefitting only one party.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

• Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the judgment of the First Appellate Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
• Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the land in Block No.5 has non-agricultural potentiality when the First Appellate Court refused to accept the said contention?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908* to emphasize that the High Court’s jurisdiction in second appeal is limited to substantial questions of law and does not extend to re-appreciating factual findings of the First Appellate Court.
• The Court referred to Order 20 Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908* to highlight the procedure for passing a preliminary decree and a final decree in partition suits.
• The Court considered Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908* regarding the appointment of a commissioner for local investigation, noting that the commissioner’s report was accepted by the Trial Court.
• The Court examined Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908* relating to the production of additional evidence in appellate courts, noting that the First Appellate Court had rejected the Respondents’ application for producing additional evidence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that the First Appellate Court is the final court on facts. The Court emphasized that the High Court should not interfere with the factual findings of the First Appellate Court unless there is a substantial question of law. The Court also gave significant weight to the fact that the First Appellate Court had considered the convenience of the parties in cultivating the land while allotting Block No. 5 to the Plaintiff.

The Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the factual findings of the First Appellate Court (70%), with legal considerations playing a supporting role (30%).

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and upheld the final decree passed by the Trial Court, as affirmed by the First Appellate Court. The Court emphasized that the First Appellate Court is the final court on facts and that the High Court should not have interfered with its findings unless there was a substantial question of law. The Court also noted that the High Court did not provide any reasons to substantiate its finding that the land in Block No. 5 has non-agricultural potentiality.

The Supreme Court observed, “The First Appellate Court is the final Court on facts. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that the judgment of the First Appellate Court should not be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, unless there is a substantial question of law.”

The Court further stated, “The High Court committed an error in setting aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court and finding fault with the final decree by taking a different view on factual findings recorded by the First Appellate Court.”

The Court also noted, “That apart, the High Court did not give any reason to substantiate the finding that the land in Block No.5 has non-agricultural potentiality, especially when the First Appellate Court refused to accept the said contention by rejecting the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 by the Respondents.”

The Supreme Court considered the delay in the case and decided to examine the correctness of the First Appellate Court’s judgment instead of remanding the matter back to the High Court. The Court upheld the final decree passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the First Appellate Court, emphasizing the importance of convenience in cultivating the land.

Key Takeaways

• The High Court’s power to interfere with the factual findings of the First Appellate Court is limited under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
• The convenience of the parties in cultivating land is a key factor to consider during property partition.
• Appellate courts should not reverse factual findings without providing substantial reasons.
• Delay in litigation should be considered when deciding on the course of action.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions other than setting aside the judgment of the High Court and upholding the final decree passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the First Appellate Court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court should not interfere with the factual findings of the First Appellate Court unless there is a substantial question of law involved. The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that the First Appellate Court is the final court on facts. It also emphasized that the convenience of the parties in cultivating the land is an important factor to consider during property partition. This judgment reinforces the existing legal framework regarding the powers of the High Court in second appeals and the importance of factual findings by the lower appellate court.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Mallanagouda vs. Ninganagouda emphasizes the importance of upholding the factual findings of the First Appellate Court and considering the convenience of parties in land partition cases. The Court’s decision reinforces the limited scope of the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and provides clarity on the factors to be considered in property partition matters. The judgment highlights the need for appellate courts to provide clear reasons when reversing factual findings and underscores the importance of timely resolution of property disputes.