LexAGNIGUNDALA VENKATA RANGA RAO versus INDUKURU RAMACHANDRA REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2017] 4 S.C.R. 816 AGNIGUNDALA VENKATA RANGA RAO v. INDUKURU RAMACHANDRA REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5817 of 2012) APRIL 13,2017 [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.) Suit: C Suit for permanent injunction - Plaintiff claiming to be in possession of suit land (which was subject-matter of State Ceiling Laws) - The defendants set up a title over the suit land on the basis of sale-deed dated 16. 7.197 5 claiming to have purchased the land from the plaintiff - Suit decreed by trial Court - Decree reversed by D Single Judge of High Court in first appeal - On appeal, held: Jn order to claim prohibitory injunction, it is necessary for the plaintiff to prima facie prove that his possession over the suit land is legal - Since the sale of the suit land vide sale deed dated 16.7.1975 was held to be null and void by the Land Ceiling Tribunal, the suit land was not available to the plaintiff for its disposal - Thus, the plaintiff E was not in lawful possession of the suit land - The plaintiff also did not come with clean hands having suppressed the fact that he had already sold the suit land - Filing of suit, after 22 years from the date of passing of the order by Land Ceiling Tribunal, was not called for - The suit was also liable to be dismissed on the ground F that the same was filed without impleading the State as a party - The suit was, in fact, a collusive suit filed to frustrate the rights of the State - Direction to Land Ceiling Tribunal to take up the case of the plaintiff and pass appropriate consequential order, if necessary, under the Land Ceiling Act - Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Hofdings) Act, 1973 - s. 7. G H Constitution of lndia: Arts. 133(3) and 143-A - Certificate of appeal granted u!Art. 143-A - By Single Judge of High Court - Validity of-'- Held: Single Judge of High Court has no jurisdiction to grant such certificate in the light of restriCtions contained in Art. 133(3). 816 AGNIGUNDALA VENKATARANGARAO v. lNDUKURU 817 RAMACHANDRA REDDY (D) BY LRS. Practice and Procedure: A Finding on fact - Rendered by trial court and first appellate court - Interference with, by superior courts - Scope of - Held: Such finding of fact should not be interfered with, by superior courts unless it is against the pleading or evidence or any provision of law or when it is found to be so perverse or/and arbitrary to the extent B that no judicial person of an average capacity can ever record. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The present appeal is filed on a certificate granted by the High Court (Single Judge) on the oral application made by the appellant immediately after the pronouncement of C the impugned judgment as provided under Article 134-A of the Constitution. The order granting certificate is a part of the impugned judgment. The Single Judge of the High Court had no jurisdiction to grant certificate in the light of restrictions contained in clause (3) of Article 133 of the Constitution. D Therefore, the certificate granted by the Single Judge of the High Court is revoked. However, this appeal is treated as a special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution. [Paras 17, 21 and 22) [824-G-H; 825-A; 827-C-D] State Bank of India & Anr. v. SB.I. Employees' Union E & Anr. (1987) 4 SCC 370 : [1988) 1 SCR 153 - relied on. 2.1 The question as to who is in possession of the suit property is essentially a question of fact. Such question is required to be decided on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties in support of their respective contentions. Once the Trial Court renders a finding either way and the same is then appreciated by F the first appellate Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, such finding is usually held binding on the second appellate Court and this Court. It is only when such finding of fact is found to be against the pleading or evidence or any provision of law or when G it is found to be so perverse or/and arbitrary to the extent that no judicial person of an average capacity can ever record, the same would not be binding on the higher Courts and may in appropriate case call for interference. [Paras 25, 26] [827-G-H; 828-A-BJ H 818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R. A 2.2 The appellant (plaintiff) simply abused the process of law in filing the suit for permanent injuncti'.ln in relation to the suit land against the respondents. The su
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.