LexARUMUGHAM (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. versus SUNDARAMBAL AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B ARUMUGHAM (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. v. SUNDARAMBAL AND ANR. APRIL 29, 1999 [M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Second Appeal Second Appeal-Second Appellate Court-Power to interfere with C findings of, facts-Suit for declaration of title of suit property and permanent injunction filed by Appellant-Plaintiff-Suit dismissed by Trial Court-Finding that plaintiff had not proved title to property of his father and was also not in possession-First appellate court granted the suit and reversed the judgment of trial court-In second Appeal High Court reversed the findings D of facts and restored the judgment of trial court-Appeal by respondent- defendant before Supreme Court-Held-Second appellate court cannot interfere with the judgment of the first appellate court on the ground that the first appellate court had not come to close grips with the reasoning of the trial court-It is open to the first appellate court to consider the evidence adduced by the parties and give its own reasons for accepting the evidence E ,on one side or rejecting the evidence on other side-It is not permissible for the second appellate court only on the ground that the first appellate court had not come to grips with the reasoning given by the appellate trial court- Impugned judgment of the High Court set aside. F S. V.R. Mudaliarv. Rajabu F. Buhari, (1995) 4SCC15, held per incuriam. Rani Hemanta Kumari Debi v. Maharaja Jagadindra Nath Roy Bahadur, 16 MLJ 272(PC), held inapplicable. V. Ramachandra Ayyar and Anr. v. Ramalingam Chettiar and Anr., AIR G (1963) SC 302, relied on. Mangamma v. Paidayya, AIR (1941) MAD 393, referred to. _......_ Burden of Proof-Held not relevant when both sides have adduced fi- evidence-It would be relevant only if a person on whom the burden of proof H lay failed to adduce any evidence altogether. f 950 ARUMUGHAM (DEAD) BY LRS v. SUNDARAMBAL 951 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2709 of A 1999. From the Judgment and Order dated 30.9.97 of the Madras High Court in S.A. No. 1946of1983. V. Prabhakar and Ms. Revathy Raghavan for the Appellants. S. Balakrishnan and S.R. Hegde for the Respondents. The following Judgment of the Court was delivered : Special leave granted. This is an appeal filed by the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff against the judgment of the High Court of Madras in Second Appeal B c No. 1946of1983 dated 30th September, 1997. By the said judgment, the High Court reversed the judgment of the lower appellate court dated 30.6.83 and restored the judgment of the Trial Court dated 12.5.82 in O.S. No. 187of1979. D The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title of the suit propertry and for permanent injunction claiming to be the son of Late Haritheertham and Mariyayee. According to him the said Haritheertham his father died 40 years earlier and Mariyayee, his mother died 5 years before the suit. It was stated that the plaintiff was suffering from paralysis for over 25 years. It was also E stated that several years earlier the first defendant and her mother were residing in the suit village and the second defendant was the husband of the first defendant. The 1st defendant was not the daughter of late Haritheertham and Mariyayee. The mother of the first defendant died 4 or 5 years before the suit and thereafter the· first defendant got patta changed into her name and F denied the right and interest of plaintiff. The plaintiff stated that the defendants were seeking to interfere with plaintiffs possession and he therefore claimed declaration of title and permanent injunction. The defendants denied Mariyayee's title. They contended that the plaintiff was an imposter and that he was not the son of late Haritheertham G and late Mariyayee. They also claimed to be in possession. The plaintiff produced oral and documentary evidence in support of his case. Four witnesses PW-I to PW-4 were examined in support of plaintiffs case and plaintiff filed sixteen documents. The defendants adduced evidence of 7 witnesses and filed seven documents in support of their case. On the H 952 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 2 S.C.R. A basis of the oral and documentary evidence placed by the respective parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had not established that he was the son of Late Haritheertham and Mariyayee. The trial court therefore gave a finding that the pl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.