Pendency Of Decades Is No Ground To Avoid Remand If Trial Court Failed To Decide Essential Dispute On Merits: Delhi High Court

​The Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani observed, “In light of the above, the contention raised on behalf of the parties that the learned first appellate court ought to have decided the issues framed in the appellate proceedings itself, instead of remanding the matter back for consideration by the learned trial court, fails to impress this court. Evidently, in this case the essential dispute between Satya Narain and DDA was never decided by the learned trial court on merits, based on evidence. Therefore, one cannot fault the learned first appellate court in having remanded the matter, even if the matter had been pending for 03 decades or so.”

Advocate Anil K. Khaware appeared for the Appellant, while Advocate Chand Chopra appeared for the Respondents.

Factual Background

Cross-appeals were filed by the Appellant and Delhi Development Authority (‘DDA’) challenging the modification of the judgment passed by the Additional District Judge by the first appellate court was pleased to remand the matter for consideration by the learned trial court. The rival parties have asserted their title and possession over the suit land and have sought protection against dispossession from the suit land at the hands of the opposing party.

Contention of the Parties

Appellant Satya Narain instituted a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction (Suit No. 1332/1991) regarding land in Khasra No. 67, Mauza Hauz Rani, New Delhi. The court appointed a Local Commissioner who confirmed the appellant’s possession, leading to a status quo order on April 30, 1991. After a 30-year trial, the Trial Court decreed the suit on January 11, 2019. It also held the DDA in contempt for demolishing structures and dispossessing the appellant on May 18, 1999, despite the subsistence of the injunction.

The appellant contended that the First Appellate Court erred on December 24, 2020, by setting aside the Trial Court's decree and remanding the matter for fresh adjudication. He argued that this remand incorrectly allowed the DDA to "fill gaping holes" in its case after decades of litigation. He asserted that the land was non-evacuee property acquired through a registered 1958 sale deed and was never subject to government acquisition or transfer to the DDA.

The DDA challenged the same First Appellate Court judgment. While the DDA succeeded in getting the Trial Court’s decree set aside, it argued that the First Appellate Court erred by remanding the matter for a fresh decision on Issues 1 to 3. The DDA contended that a remand was unnecessary and unauthorized because sufficient evidence already existed on record to decide the case finally.

The DDA presented a detailed timeline to prove that the suit land was part of a 1948 acquisition under the Resettlement of Displaced Persons Act. It stated that the land was transferred to the DDA in 1982 for a payment of Rs. 30 crores, and physical possession was handed over in 1986. The DDA disputed the respondent's claim of long-term possession, asserting that no construction existed on the land in July 1990 and that the respondent was merely an encroacher.

Observations of the Court

The Court summarized the contentions into four substantial questions of law. First, it examined whether the First Appellate Court possessed the authority to remand the matter for a fresh decision based on existing or additional evidence. Second, the Court questioned whether Satya Narain was legally obligated to seek a formal declaration of title before requesting a mandatory injunction, since the DDA had disputed his ownership. Third, it considered whether the suit could be decided based on the principle of "settled possession" without first determining the legality of that possession. Finally, the Court addressed whether the First Appellate Court was duty-bound to resolve the disputes itself rather than remanding the case, particularly because the Trial Court had failed to return findings on the original issues.

For the first issue the Court observed, “At this point it must be observed that though the repeated refrain of both sides is that the learned first appellate court could not have directed the recording of what the parties have termed variously as “further evidence”, “particular set of evidence”, or “travel beyond the evidence on record”, that submission is not borne-out by the contents of the judgment passed by the learned first appellate court. Nowhere in its judgment has the learned first appellate court directed either of the parties to lead further evidence. On point of law however, that submission is in any case belied by a plain reading of the statutory provisions mentioned above.”

For the next issue, while the appellant argued that his 1958 registered sale deed cleared any "cloud" over his title, the Court found this position flawed due to the DDA’s competing claims under the 1948 and 1982 acquisition notifications. The Court held that when rival contentions over ownership existed, a party had to seek a formal declaration of title rather than a mere injunction. It concluded that the First Appellate Court correctly determined that the title needed to be adjudicated through evidence, as a suit for injunction simpliciter was insufficient when the underlying right to property was seriously disputed.

For the third issue, the Court held that the existence of settled possession was a factual determination that could only be established through an examination of the evidence already on record or any further evidence the parties chose to provide. Consequently, the Court found no error in the First Appellate Court’s decision, affirming that the Trial Court needed to decide the framed issues after properly considering the evidence.

Further, the Court held, “In light of the above, the contention raised on behalf of the parties that the learned first appellate court ought to have decided the issues framed in the appellate proceedings itself, instead of remanding the matter back for consideration by the learned trial court, fails to impress this court. Evidently, in this case the essential dispute between Satya Narain and DDA was never decided by the learned trial court on merits, based on evidence. Therefore, one cannot fault the learned first appellate court in having remanded the matter, even if the matter had been pending for 03 decades or so.”

Furthermore, “Shorn of all verbiage and needless nuance, in the opinion of this court, the decision of the matter would turn upon whether appellant-Satya Narain is able to establish title to the suit land or whether the appellant-DDA is able to establish acquisition of the suit land, which is nub of the contestation between the parties. This core issue is one that must be decided first by the learned trial court, based on evidence that comes before it. Considering that the core issue relates to title to land, which is a valuable right that would inure for decades to come, it would be inadvisable for this court to adopt any shortcut by directing the learned first appellate court to decide the issues. It needs no emphasis, that directing the learned first appellate court to decide the issues would also foreclose a valuable right of appeal for the aggrieved party.”, the Court held.

Conclusion

The Court concluded, “As a sequitur to the above, and staying within the confines of its powers under section 100 of the CPC, this court is of the view that the learned first appellate court was right in remanding the matter to the learned trial court for fresh consideration on the basis of the evidence before it. That being said, this court would also observe, that since the issues that are material to a decision of the case were never addressed or decided by the learned trial court on merits, based on evidence, the parties would also be at liberty, if they so decide, to lead further or additional evidence before the learned trial court, as may be permissible, in accordance with law.”

Accordingly, the Court dismissed both the appeals.

Cause Title: Shri Satya Narain v. Chairman Delhi Development Authority & Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:149]

Appearances:

Appellant: Advocates Anil K. Khaware, Yogendra Kumar and Manoj Ram.

Respondents: Advocates Chand Chopra and Anshika Prakash.

Click here to read/download the Judgment