A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The judgment resolves a long-standing dispute concerning civil court jurisdiction over land possession disputes where overlapping claims arise between two revenue estates. The Supreme Court examined whether a suit for permanent injunction based purely on possession is barred by statutory revenue laws, specifically Section 28 and Section 83 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954, read with Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The appellants contended that the controversy constituted a boundary dispute between Village Basai Darapur and Village Shakarpur and therefore lay exclusively within the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities. The Court rejected this contention and clarified the conceptual distinction between a boundary dispute between revenue estates and a dispute regarding identification and possession of private land.

The Court reaffirmed that civil courts enjoy plenary jurisdiction unless expressly or impliedly barred. It held that the Land Revenue Act does not provide any mechanism for granting injunctions relating to possession, thereby preserving civil court jurisdiction. The judgment also addresses procedural aspects concerning Order XLI Rule 27 CPC and reiterates settled law on Section 100 CPC, holding that a High Court is not bound to frame a substantial question of law where none arises.

This decision strengthens the doctrinal clarity on jurisdictional overlap between civil courts and revenue authorities and reinforces access to civil remedies under the maxim ubi jus ibi remedium.

Keywords:
Civil court jurisdiction; Permanent injunction; Boundary dispute; Delhi Land Revenue Act; Section 9 CPC; Order XLI Rule 27 CPC

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The litigation originates from a property dispute spanning several decades, rooted in competing claims over agricultural land situated in Delhi. The respondents asserted ownership and possession over Khasra No. 238 located in the revenue estate of Village Basai Darapur. Their title had earlier been affirmed through a declaratory decree passed in 1960, which attained finality after dismissal of proceedings initiated by the Union of India under Section 161-B of the Delhi Land Reforms Act.

Subsequently, apprehending dispossession, the respondents instituted a suit for permanent injunction in 1971. The appellant, impleaded as defendant no. 4, contested the claim by asserting possession over Khasra No. 79 situated in Village Shakarpur and denied the plaintiffs’ possession. The defence strategy consistently sought to characterise the dispute as a boundary dispute between two villages, thereby invoking the bar of civil jurisdiction under Section 28 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act.

The trial court and the first appellate court concurrently upheld the plaintiffs’ possession and decreed injunction. The High Court dismissed the second appeal without framing substantial questions of law. The matter thus reached the Supreme Court, primarily raising issues on jurisdiction, admissibility of additional evidence, and procedural compliance under Section 100 CPC.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The respondents’ claim traces back to a decree dated 7 October 1960 declaring them owners and bhumidars of land measuring 4 Bighas 3 Biswas in Khasra No. 238, Village Basai Darapur. This decree survived a statutory challenge by the Union of India, which was dismissed on 24 May 1968.

In 1971, the respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging threats to their possession by the defendants. Defendant nos. 1 to 3 raised a jurisdictional objection based on Section 85 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. Defendant no. 4 asserted exclusive possession and claimed that the disputed land did not form part of Khasra No. 238 but instead belonged to Khasra No. 79, Village Shakarpur.

The trial court framed nine issues, including ownership, possession, identification of khasra numbers, and jurisdiction. On appreciation of documentary and oral evidence, including site plans from 1953–54, the court held that the land fell within Khasra No. 238 and that consolidation had occurred only in Village Shakarpur.

The first appellate court reappreciated evidence and found the appellant’s claim self-contradictory. The second appeal before the High Court was dismissed, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether a suit for permanent injunction based on possession is barred under Section 28 or Section 83 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954?
ii. Whether the High Court is mandatorily required to frame a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC while dismissing a second appeal?
iii. Whether additional evidence can be permitted under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC when parties have already led full evidence at trial?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the appellant submitted that the dispute was essentially a boundary dispute between two revenue estates and therefore fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities under Section 28 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act. It was argued that the civil court lacked competence to determine such disputes.

It was further contended that the High Court committed a procedural illegality by dismissing the second appeal without framing substantial questions of law, allegedly in violation of Section 100 CPC. The appellant also asserted prejudice due to non-consideration of the application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC seeking production of additional revenue records.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the respondents argued that the suit was simpliciter for injunction based on possession and did not involve demarcation or settlement of boundaries between villages. It was submitted that Section 83 of the Land Revenue Act exhaustively enumerates matters barred from civil jurisdiction and the present dispute did not fall within any such category.

The respondents further contended that the appellant had full opportunity to lead evidence at trial and that the additional documents sought were irrelevant to the pleaded case.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Section 9, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
ii. Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
iii. Order XLI Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
iv. Section 28, Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954
v. Section 83, Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954

I) JUDGEMENT 

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the concurrent findings of all courts below. The Court categorically held that boundary disputes under Section 28 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act refer only to disputes between revenue estates and do not include disputes concerning identification or possession of private land.

The Court emphasised that Section 83 of the Act provides a limited ouster of civil jurisdiction and does not cover suits for injunction. It reiterated that civil courts possess plenary jurisdiction under Section 9 CPC unless expressly or impliedly barred. Since the Land Revenue Act provides no remedy for injunction, the jurisdiction of civil courts remains intact.

On the procedural issue, the Court relied on Ashok Rangnath Magar v. Shrikant Govindrao Sangvikar to hold that the High Court may dismiss a second appeal without framing a substantial question of law if none arises.

The application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC was rejected on the ground that the documents sought were irrelevant and the controversy had already been fully understood and adjudicated at trial.

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio of the judgment lies in the affirmation that civil court jurisdiction is the rule and statutory exclusion is the exception. A dispute relating to possession and injunction does not become a boundary dispute merely because parties belong to different revenue estates. Unless a statute provides both a right and a complete remedial mechanism, civil jurisdiction cannot be impliedly barred.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that procedural provisions such as Section 100 CPC are not to be applied mechanically. Framing of substantial questions of law is contingent upon their actual existence, not on a ritualistic requirement.

c) GUIDELINES

i. Civil courts retain jurisdiction over possession-based injunction suits unless expressly barred.
ii. Boundary disputes under revenue laws must be strictly construed.
iii. Additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC cannot be permitted to fill lacunae.
iv. High Courts may dismiss second appeals at admission stage if no substantial question of law arises.

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

i. Md. Mohammad Ali v. Jagadish Kalita, (2004) 1 SCC 271
ii. Ashok Rangnath Magar v. Shrikant Govindrao Sangvikar, (2015) 16 SCC 763
iii. South Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Today Homes Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1052

b) Important Statutes Referred

i. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
ii. Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954
iii. Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954