BONDER & ANR. versus HEM SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 9 S.C.R. 410 · Decided: 15-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2009] 9 S.C.R. 410 
BONDER &,ANR. 
v. 
HEM SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. & OR-8. 
(Civil Appeal No. 829 of 2002) 
'..-MAY 15, 2009 
[DALVE~RBHANDARI AND OR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
Suit: 
Suit for possession and mesne profits .... One brother 
entrusting his share of properly In land and house to another 
brother of looking after the property and also to give him the 
usufructslincome therefrom - On demand, the other brother 
0 
refusing to give possession and mesne profits - Trial Court 
decreeing the suit for possession and mesne profits - Upheld 
by Appellate Court - High Court setting aside the concurrent 
findings· of facts - On appeal, Held: The High Court has not 
examined the pleadings of the. parties and evidence on record 
E in proper perspective -
The defendant is guilty of taking 
entirely dishonest defences before the· trial Court - Court 
should always effectively discard such a dishonest conduct 
- The defendant did not have any case either in law or equity 
F 
- lmpugnedjudgment of High Court cannot be sustained -
Hence set aside. 
'S' and 'J' are two brothers who had inherited some 
agricultural land and an ancestral house from their father. 
They were jointly cultivating the lanci and occupied the 
ancestral house jointly. 'S' went to his maternal uncle's 
· G house to look after his property, and requested his 
brother 'J' to look after his share of the property and to 
give him to usufruct or income from his share of the 
property. 
H 
410 
I • 
( 
BONDER & ANR. v. HEM SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. & 411 
ORS. 
'S' returned back from his uncle's house and 
A 
demanded. the possession of his share in the property 
and the income derived therefrom, but 'J' did not pay any 
attention to his request. 'S' gave a notice to 'J' and since 
there was no response, he filed a civil suit claiming 
possession and mesne profits. The Civil Judge decreed 
B 
the suit. The First Appellate Court upheld the judgment 
of the trial court and observed that the trial court was 
right in holding it was not proved that the defendants's 
title over the suit land has been perfected by adverse 
possession and ouster of the plaintiff to his knowledge c 
for more than 12 years. 
On second appeal, High Court set aside the 
concurrent findings of facts of the courts below. Hence 
the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The High Court erroneously set aside the 
concurrent findings of facts of the two well reasoned 
judgments of the courts below. [Para 15] [417-C] 
1.2. The High Court has not examined the pleadings 
D 
E 
of the' parties and evidence on record in proper 
perspective. The High Court ought to have appreciated 
that the plaintiff while leaving the village asked his brother 
(defendant) that he should look after the land which was 
F 
in the share of the plaintiff also and keep the account of 
usufruct or income from the property of the plaintiff. The 
plaintiff had always remained a co-owner of the property 
in question. While leaving the village he asked his brother 
to look after the property in his absence. Fro~ that it can 
G 
never be construed that the plaintiff at any point of time 
did not remain co-owner of the property or surrendered 
his interest in the property. The defendant is guilty of 
taking entirely dishonest defences before the trial court. 
The court should always effectively discard such a 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
412 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
. [2009] 9 S.C.R. 
dishonest conduct. [Para 14] [416-G-H; 417-A-B] 
1.3. The impugned judgment of the High Court is 
wholly unsustainable, illegal, perverse and against the 
norms of any civilized society. The judgment of the High 
Court has demolished the entire fiber of joint family 
system of our country and has put premium on the 
dishonesty of, the defendant and the same deserves to 
be set aside. It is unfortunate if one brother cannot trust 
his own brother even to this extent then how can peace 
and tranquility ·prevail in the society. The saddest part is · 
that the High Court ~hile s~.~ting aside the concurrent 
findings of the two courts has"'put judicial seal of approval 
on such a dishonest conduct of the defendant. The 
impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be 
sustained and is accordingly set aside. The defendant did 
. not have any case either in law or equity. [Para 16] [417-
0-F] 
P. Lakshmi Reddy v. L. Lakshmi Reddy AIR 1'957 SC 
314 and Corea v. Appuhamy 1912 AC 230 (C), referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
AIR 1957 SC 314 
re

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.