http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SMT. GITARANI PAUL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DIBYENDRA KUNDU ALIAS DIBYENDRA KUMAR KUNDU

DATE OF JUDGMENT06/12/1990

BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) RAMASWAMY, K.

CITATION:  1991 AIR  395            1990 SCR  Supl. (3) 464  1991 SCC  (1)   1        JT 1990 (4)   702  1990 SCALE  (2)1198

ACT:     Civil  Procedure  Code, 1908:  Section  100   Concurrent finding  of facts--Ignoring of in Second  appeal--Issue  not raised or argued before Courts below  Acceptance of--Whether justified.     West  Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953:  Under-Raiy- ats--Sale    of    their    rights--Approval    of    higher authorities--Whether required.

HEADNOTE:     The appellant purchased the suit land from Bauries,  the under  Raiyats by way of sale deeds, after the  coming  into force  of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953.  It was  stated  that  defendants 1 and 2  accompanied  by  some Policemen  had  disturbed the possession of  the  appellant- plaintiff  by  destroying  the standing  crop  and  planting gamagrass seedlings in the land. Hence the appellant  insti- tuted a suit for declaration of title and possession of  the suit land. The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the appellant-plaintiff.     On  an appeal filed by the Defendants, the First  Appel- late Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court.     Aggrieved, Defendant No. 1 filed a Second appeal  before the  High Court. Reaching a finding that the actual date  of dispossession  was not specifically mentioned in the  plaint and  unless  the same was pleaded and proved, the  suit  for possession  was  not competent, the High Court  allowed  the appeal and set aside the judgments of the Courts below.     The  appellant-plaintiff has preferred the  present  ap- peal, by special leave, against the High Court judgment. Allowing the appeal, this Court,     HELD: 1. The High Court fell into error in ignoring  the concurrent  findings of the Courts below and  accepting  the appeal  on  an  issue which was neither  raised  nor  argued before  the Courts below. The High Court misread the  plead- ings and the evidence on the record. [467B-D] 465     2.  In the face of clear pleadings and the  evidence  on record  the High Court was wrong in reaching the  conclusion that there was no pleadings and evidence regarding disposes- sion.  Even  otherwise  in the face of the  finding  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

Courts  below  that the appellant-plaintiff had  proved  her title it was not necessary for the High Court to go into the question of ascertaining the date of dispossession. [468A-B]     3.  There is nothing on record to show that the  Baaries could  not  sell their rights as under-Raiyats  without  the approval  of the higher authorities. Neither there  are  any pleadings on this point nor any evidence was led before  the trial Court. [468C]

JUDGMENT: