Appellate Court's Reliance on Unexhibited Documents in Protected Monument Dispute Validated
In a significant ruling, the Gujarat High Court has dismissed the second appeal filed by Pirzada Saiyed Bahauddin B. Kadri against the State of Gujarat, thereby upholding the decision of the Joint District Judge, Vadodara, which reversed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The case centered around the plaintiff's claim to exercise burial rights in the land surrounding the protected monument known as Danteshwar Hajira in Vadodara.
Justice J.C. Doshi, presiding over the case, examined whether the appellate court erred in relying on documents that were not formally exhibited during the trial. These documents, primarily public records such as revenue entries and government notifications, were deemed critical by the appellate court to determine the case's outcome. The High Court concurred with this approach, citing provisions under Order XLI Rule 27(1)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which allows appellate courts to consider additional evidence if necessary for pronouncing judgment.
The plaintiff, claiming to be a religious leader with customary burial rights for his family near the tomb of Qutbuddin Muhammad Khan, faced opposition from the state, which argued that the site was a protected monument governed by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. The High Court affirmed that the plaintiff failed to establish any customary or legal rights to the burial activities, highlighting statutory restrictions under Section 19 of the Act, which prohibits digging beyond one foot in protected areas.
Furthermore, the High Court noted procedural deficiencies in the plaintiff's case, including the failure to join the Archaeological Survey of India as a necessary party, which was a critical oversight given the monument's protected status.
The ruling underscores the judiciary's stance on maintaining the integrity of protected monuments and the necessity of adhering to procedural and evidentiary standards in civil litigation.
Bottom Line:
Second Appeal under section 100 CPC dismissed by Gujarat High Court - Substantial questions of law framed by the coordinate bench were found not to meet the criteria of substantial questions of law as per established legal principles - Appellate Court's reliance on documents produced by the plaintiff but not exhibited was deemed valid under Order XLI Rule 27(1)(b) of CPC.
Statutory provision(s):
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100, Order XLI Rule 27(1)(b); Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 - Sections 5, 16, 19.
Pirzada Saiyed Bahauddin B. Kadri v. State of Gujarat, (Gujarat) : Law Finder Doc id # 2862542
