Relief Not Claimed In Suit Cannot Be Imposed By Court; Second Appeal Must Be Decided Only On Substantial Questions Of Law, Says Supreme Court
New Delhi, June 19: The Supreme Court has set aside a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had reversed decrees directing removal of alleged encroachment and instead directed monetary compensation to the plaintiff’s legal heirs.
A Bench comprising Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar held that where the plaintiff had filed suits for mandatory and permanent injunction seeking removal of encroachment, and had not sought damages or compensation, the High Court could not compel the plaintiff’s legal heirs to accept monetary compensation in place of the decree granted in their favour.
The Court observed that such a course was impermissible, particularly when the legal heirs of the plaintiff had not consented to receive compensation.
Background
The original plaintiff, Om Parkash, had filed Civil Suit No. 426 of 1996 against the defendants seeking mandatory injunction for removal of alleged illegal encroachment in the form of walls constructed on common open space beyond the plaintiff’s house.
He also sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from raising further construction over the disputed area.
The Trial Court decreed the suit on 06.02.2006 and directed the defendants to remove the encroachment by removing the walls. It also restrained them from raising further construction.
The defendants’ first appeal was dismissed on 05.09.2007 and the Trial Court decree was upheld.
Second Suit Regarding Lintel
The plaintiff had also filed another suit, Civil Suit No. 148 of 2000, against the same defendants.
In that suit, he sought mandatory injunction for removal of the lintel of the school building allegedly erected by the defendants on the wall of the plaintiff’s house.
The Trial Court decreed the suit on 08.11.2004 and directed the defendants to remove the lintel. The defendants were also restrained from putting any lintel on any wall of the plaintiff’s house.
The first appellate court dismissed the defendants’ appeal and upheld the decree.
High Court Earlier Converted Relief Into Compensation
The defendants filed second appeals before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
In 2011, the High Court disposed of the second appeals by directing the defendants to pay ₹10,000 in one case and ₹7,000 in the other case, being half of the alleged expenditure incurred on construction of the walls, with 12% interest. The High Court further held that on such payment, the wall would be treated as common between the parties.
The legal heirs of the plaintiff challenged the judgment before the Supreme Court.
In 2013, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, observing that the High Court had modified the decrees without entering into the merits and without framing substantial questions of law. The matters were remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration.
High Court Again Directed Monetary Compensation
After remand, the High Court again set aside the decrees granted by the Trial Court and affirmed by the first appellate court.
The High Court observed that the construction had been raised long back, that there was no valuation report on record, and that the plaintiff could be compensated in money.
Accordingly, it directed the Executing Court to assess the value of the construction and directed the defendants to deposit such amount for payment to the legal heirs of the plaintiff.
The legal heirs of the plaintiff again approached the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court: Compensation Cannot Replace Relief Sought
The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed an error in reversing the decrees on irrelevant considerations.
The Court noted that the plaintiff’s suits were for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction. There was no prayer for damages or compensation.
The Trial Court had found that the defendants could not prove any right, title or interest over the land on which the wall had been constructed. In the second suit, the Trial Court had also found that the defendants had illegally put a lintel of the school building on the wall of the plaintiff’s house.
Both decrees were affirmed by the first appellate court.
In such circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the High Court could not replace the decree for removal of encroachment with a direction for monetary compensation.
No Consent From Plaintiff’s Legal Heirs
The Supreme Court also noted that the legal heirs of the plaintiff had not agreed to accept compensation.
The Court held that in absence of any prayer for compensation and in absence of consent, the High Court could not impose such a course on the plaintiff’s legal heirs.
The Court observed that a party who had obtained a decree for removal of encroachment could not be forced to accept money instead of the relief granted by the courts below.
Executing Court Cannot Assess Compensation After Decree Is Set Aside
The Supreme Court also found fault with the High Court’s direction to the Executing Court to assess the value of the offending wall.
The Court reasoned that once the High Court had set aside the decrees passed in favour of the plaintiff, there would be no decree left for execution.
Therefore, directing the Executing Court to assess the value of the wall would require it to undertake an exercise not supported by any executable decree.
The Supreme Court held that such a course was not supported by Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
High Court Repeated Same Error Despite Earlier Supreme Court Remand
The Supreme Court observed that a similar exercise had already been undertaken by the High Court earlier, when it had directed payment of compensation in place of the injunction decrees.
That earlier judgment had been set aside by the Supreme Court in 2013.
Despite the remand, the High Court again committed the same error by directing valuation and compensation instead of deciding the second appeals on merits in accordance with law.
Wrong Factual Premise
The Supreme Court also noted that the High Court proceeded on an incorrect factual premise that the Trial Court had recorded a finding that the disputed wall was a common wall.
The Supreme Court clarified that no such finding had been recorded by the Trial Court. On the contrary, the Trial Court had passed a decree directing removal of the offending wall.
No Proper Substantial Question Of Law
The Supreme Court further held that the High Court had not properly framed and decided substantial questions of law as required under Section 100 CPC.
Although the High Court referred to certain questions, the judgment did not show that those questions were treated as substantial questions of law. Yet, the High Court concluded that the substantial questions were answered in favour of the defendants.
The Supreme Court held that without a proper substantial question of law and by creating a new relief not claimed by the plaintiff, the High Court set aside decrees in favour of the plaintiff, resulting in miscarriage of justice.
Matter Remanded To High Court
The Supreme Court set aside the common judgment dated 02.05.2016 passed by the High Court in RSA Nos. 363 and 364 of 2008.
Since the second appeals had not been adjudicated on merits, the Supreme Court remanded the matters to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with Section 100 CPC.
Considering that the second appeals were of the year 2008, the Supreme Court requested the High Court to decide them expeditiously.
Key Takeaway
The judgment reiterates that courts cannot grant a relief which was never claimed by the plaintiff, especially when such relief alters the nature of the decree.
Where the plaintiff seeks removal of encroachment and obtains a decree for mandatory injunction, the High Court cannot force the plaintiff to accept monetary compensation unless such relief is sought or consented to.
The decision also reinforces that second appeals under Section 100 CPC must be decided only on properly framed substantial questions of law.