In a significant legal battle, the Supreme Court of India recently issued a judgment in the case of Dera Baba Dargah Singh v. Jaswinder Singh. The Court considered crucial aspects such as the ownership of the property and the validity of the transaction under the Hindu Public Religious Institution (Prevention of Dissipation of Properties) Act, 1962. Stay informed about the key points discussed and the Court’s decision in this complex case.
Facts
- The Court considered the arguments presented by the parties in relation to the specific part of the judgment (FAC).
- Key points discussed during the hearing were summarized.
- Evidence and precedents related to the specific part of the judgment were analyzed.
- Any relevant legal principles or statutes were taken into account and applied to the specific part of the judgment.
- The Court’s decision and reasoning regarding the specific part of the judgment were explained.
Also Read: Quashing of Complaint Case No. 85479 of 2022 in the Case of Industrial Dispute Violation
Issue
- Whether the alleged transaction of the disputed property was void ab initio due to violation of Section 7 of Hindu Public Religious Institution (Prevention of Dissipation of Properties) Act, 1962.
- Court focused on adjudicating this specific substantial legal question during the arguments.
- The presence of learned counsels from both parties facilitated the discussion and analysis of this issue.
- Key consideration was whether the transaction in question was in contravention of the mentioned Act.
- Emphasis on determining if the transaction could be deemed null and void from the beginning.
- The Court’s decision hinged on the interpretation and application of Section 7 of the Act.
Also Read: Court’s Jurisdiction in Re-appraising Arbitrator’s Findings
Analysis
- The High Court’s judgment in the Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC was impugned.
- The act of finally hearing a second appeal without framing any substantial question of law is deemed illegal.
- A second appeal can only be finally heard on a substantial question of law formulated earlier.
- Key questions of law in this case include ownership of the property by Dera Baba Dargah Singh and the nature of its transfer by Jaswinder Singh.
- Another important aspect is the validity of decreeing the suit based on Khasra, Khatauni, and ‘Kisan Bahi’ issued by revenue officials in favor of the lease holders.
- The High Court did not formulate substantial questions of law at the time of admission of the appeal, which is required for a second appeal to be finally heard.
- The High Court’s procedure in confining itself to three substantial questions of law was criticized as illegal and against Section 100 of the CPC.
- It was pointed out that the High Court should have given notice to the Advocates about the specific substantial questions of law before the hearing began.
- There is no evidence to show that the High Court formulated these substantial questions of law and allowed the parties to argue based on them.
Also Read: Contrary Directions in Issuance of Letter of Intent
Decision
- Pending applications, including the application for impleadment, disposed of accordingly.
- A copy of this order to be forwarded to the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court of Uttarakhand.
- Interim relief operative till the date of the impugned judgment in restored Second Appeals to continue.
- Civil Appeals partly allowed on specified terms.
- High Court permitted to frame substantial questions of law mentioned in the impugned judgment or additional ones, without issuing notice to parties.
- Restored Second Appeals to be listed before the roster Bench on 27 August, 2024.
- Impugned judgment dated 13 November, 2017 set aside, and Second Appeal Nos.34/2003 and 48/2003 restored to the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital.
- High Court to fix a date for the hearing of Second Appeals considering their age of 21 years.
- Parties appearing today to mandatory appear before the High Court on the fixed hearing date.
- All contentions on the merits of the Second Appeals are kept open for further consideration.
Case Title: NEK PAL Vs. NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD (2024 INSC 574)
Case Number: C.A. No.-008038-008039 – 2024
