RAJAT KUMAR & ORS. v. S.D. ADARSH JAIN KANYA MAHA VIDYALAYA SADHAURA & ORS.
2026 INSC 648 (SC)
HEAD NOTES
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 100 – Second Appeal – Scope of jurisdiction – Reversal of concurrent findings without framing substantial question of law – Impermissibility.
Held, the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, cannot reverse concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the First Appellate Court without framing and deciding substantial questions of law. Reversal of decrees without adherence to the mandatory requirements of Section 100 CPC is unsustainable. (Paras 3, 5(d), 6)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Relief not claimed – Grant of compensation in place of mandatory injunction – Legality.
Held, where the plaintiff sought only mandatory and permanent injunctions for removal of encroachment and illegal construction, and had not claimed damages or compensation, the Court could not compel the plaintiff or his legal heirs to accept monetary compensation in substitution of the decree. A Court cannot create and grant a relief never prayed for, particularly against the wishes of the successful party. (Para 5(a), (c))
Mandatory Injunction – Encroachment – Decree in plaintiff’s favour – Substitution by compensation without consent.
Held, a decree directing removal of encroachment and illegal construction cannot be replaced by an order directing payment of compensation merely because the construction has existed for a long period. In the absence of consent of the decree-holder and in the absence of a prayer for compensation, such substitution is legally impermissible. (Para 5(a), (c))
Execution Proceedings – Order XXI CPC – Scope.
Held, once the decree granting mandatory injunction is set aside, there remains no executable decree. Consequently, the Executing Court cannot be directed to assess the value of the disputed construction for payment of compensation. Such a direction is outside the scope of execution proceedings and is unsupported by Order XXI CPC. (Para 5(b))
Findings based on erroneous factual premise – Effect.
Held, the High Court proceeded on the incorrect assumption that the Trial Court had held the wall to be a common wall. No such finding existed. On the contrary, the Trial Court had decreed removal of the offending wall. A judgment founded upon a factually erroneous premise cannot be sustained. (Para 5(d))
Injunction – Encroachment and illegal construction – Protection of property rights.
Plaintiff obtained decrees directing removal of (i) a wall allegedly erected by defendants on common open space and (ii) a lintel of a school building constructed on the plaintiff’s wall. Both decrees were affirmed in first appeal.
Held, the High Court erred in setting aside the decrees on equitable considerations and substituting them with compensation. The matter required adjudication strictly in accordance with Section 100 CPC and on the merits of the Second Appeals. (Paras 5, 6)
Ratio Decidendi
- Relief not sought in pleadings cannot ordinarily be imposed by the Court as a substitute for the relief actually claimed.
- Compensation cannot be forced upon a successful plaintiff in place of a decree for mandatory injunction in the absence of consent.
- An Executing Court cannot undertake valuation proceedings when no executable decree survives.
- A Second Appeal can be decided only upon properly framed substantial questions of law under Section 100 CPC.
- Findings based on incorrect factual assumptions vitiate the judgment. (Paras 5(a)–(d), 6)
Final Order
Impugned judgment of the High Court dated 02.05.2016 in RSA Nos. 363 and 364 of 2008 set aside. Matter remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration of both Second Appeals in accordance with Section 100 CPC and on their own merits. Appeals allowed. No order as to costs. (Paras 6, 7)
