In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 37 OF 2024-SC- Impugned judgment cannot be sustained as it does not conform to scope of Sec.100 of CPC: SC in appeal challenging Madras HC order whereby material evidence was not taken into consideration
Justices Vikram Nath & Rajesh Bindal [03-01-2024]

Read Order: RAJENDHIRAN v. MUTHAIAMMAL @ MUTHAYEE & ORS

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, January 4, 2023: In a property dispute case, the Supreme Court has allowed an appeal challenging a Madras High Court judgment in light of the fact that the High Court ignored material evidence and recorded a perverse finding.

The Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal was considering an appeal whereby the defendants, assailed the correctness of the judgment of the Madras High Court allowing the Second Appeal filed by the plaintiff.

The facts of the case were that the respondent instituted a suit before the Munsiff Court claiming relief of declaration that the sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of second defendant was null and void and to declare that suit property belonged to the plaintiffs and further for relief of an injunction against the defendants.

According to the plaint case, the property in question originally belonged to one Avinashi Gounder who had four sons namely, Arunachalam, Arumugam, Ramasamy and Palaniyappan. Plaintiff No.1 is the wife and plaintiff no.2 is the adopted son of Arunachalam. The first defendant is the daughter of Palaniyappan and the second defendant is the vendee of the suit property from defendant no.1.

According to the plaintiffs, the four brothers had entered into an oral partition and the suit property came to the share of Arunachalam. Subsequently Arunachalam, had executed a will whereby the suit property and other properties belonging to Arunachalam were bequeathed in favour of the plaintiffs. Upon the death of Arunachalam, the plaintiffs became the absolute owners of the property in suit.

Plaintiff no.2 and defendant no.2 were running a partnership business and the property in suit was offered as a security to the Karur Vysya Bank. As the loan amount could not be repaid, plaintiff no.2 cleared the outstanding loan. Further it was claimed that defendant no.2 clandestinely obtained the sale deed. It was the case of the plaintiff that the entire property which was allotted to Palaniyappan (father of defendant no.1) had been sold by defendant no.1 with specific boundaries to one Mathiyalagan. It was thus the claim of the plaintiffs that the defendants would not have any right over the properties of Avinashi Gounder and that the plaintiffs were cultivating the land in suit but as the defendant no.2 tried to trespass the suit property, the necessity for filing the suit arose.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal but the same was dismissed the appeal. Specific findings were recorded that the oral partition had not been proved by the plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court also approved the finding regarding non-joinder of necessary parties. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs preferred Second Appeal but the same was dismissed.

The Bench opined that the two sale deeds related to different properties and not to survey number in question. “Whether any partition with respect to the survey number in question had taken place or not, is not borne out from the record. The suit property was never recorded in the name of the plaintiffs or for that matter, husband of plaintiff no.1, at any time”, the Bench said.

The will which was the basis of the claim of the plaintiff, had not been found to be proved in accordance to law. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had dealt with the two sale deeds, and found that these were not sufficient to prove the oral partition or in any manner established the oral partition with respect to the survey number in question.

The Bench was of the view that although the plaintiffs set up a case that the land in suit was coming from Avinashi Gounder but on record, two pattas were filed which established that the survey number in question had been allotted in the name of plaintiff no.1 and eight others jointly with respect to which there was no partition. This fact had been admitted by the plaintiffs in their deposition.

Noting that all these aspects had been considered by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court but the High Court failed to consider the oral as also the documentary evidence, the Bench observed that only on the basis of the two sale deeds and one mortgage deed, which related to different piece and parcels of land, the High Court recorded a perverse finding that oral partition had taken place. It also did not deal with the other findings recorded by the Courts below.

“In view of the above discussion and on the findings recorded above, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained as it not only does not conform to the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but also as it was perverse on appreciated evidence, and also ignoring material evidence”, the Bench held while allowing the appeal.