LexDNYANESHWAR RANGANATH BHANDARE & ANR. versus SADHU DADU SHETTIGAR (SHETTY) & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 187 DNYANESHWAR RANGANATH BHANDARE & ANR. v. SADHU DADU SHETTIGAR (SHETTY) & ANR. (Civil Appeal Nos. 8400-8401 of 2011) SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950: A B Article 136 - Interference by Supreme Court - Suit for c possession of premises by landlord alleging that the respondents were gratuitous licencees regarding one room and unauthorized encroachers in respect of the second room, decreed - Suit for permanent injunction by respondents that they were tenants - Trial court held that respondents 0 continued in occupation as licencee and not as tenant - First appellate court holding that the appellants failed to prove that the respondents were gratuitous licensees or that they had encroached upon one room, decreed the suit for injunction by the first respondent - High Court upheld the order in E second appeals - On appeal, held: Burden was on the respondents to establish that they were tenants and not licensees but the first appellate court wrongly placed the burden upon the appellants - None of the documents produced or relied upon by respondents evidenced tenancy or payment of rent - First appellate court failed to record any F finding that respondents were tenants - Documents produced by the respondents which merely showed their possession were wrongly interpreted to hold that the appellants failed to prove that respondents were gratuitous tenants - High Court did not interfere on the ground that no question of law was G involved - It failed to notice that the inferences and legal effect from proved facts is a question of law and tfW inferences drawn by the first appellate court were wholly unwarranted - Thus, the judgment of the first appellate court and the High 187 H 188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) $.C.R. A Court are unsustainable and the findings of the trial court that respondents are gratuitous licencees was correct and justified -- Decree for possession of the suit portions granted by the trial court is restored. 8 Article 136 - Jurisdiction under - Exercise of - Interference with findings of facts - When warranted - Stated. Appellant No. 1 and 2 are the sons of 'L'. It is the case of the appellants' that their mother was staying alone in the ~uit premises. In the year 1985, second respondent C was engaged as a servant to look after 'L' and was allowed to reside in one of the room as a licensee without any rent. Next year 'L' died and second respondent was allowed to continue as a licencee for some time. However, she did not vacate the room and first D respondent with whom second respondent was having a live-in relationship, forcibly occupied the other room and claimed himself to be tenant of the two rooms. First respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction asserting himself to be the tenant of the suit premises whereas the E appellants filed suit for possession of the suit premises contenting that the respondents were gratuitous licencees regarding one room and unauthorized encroachers in respect of the second room. The trial court decreed both the suits holding that the appellants F are the owners and they have established that second respondent was their licencee. Aggrieved, respondent No. 1 and 2 filed ar. appeal against the decree for possession and respondent no. t filed an appeal against the dismissal of his suit for injunction. The first appellate G court holding that the appellants failed to prove that the respondents were gratuitous licensees or that they had encroached upon one room dismissed the suit for . possessiol1tby appellants and decreed the suit for injunction by the first respondent. The appellants filed second appeals. The High Court dismissed the same H DNYANESHWAR RANGANATH BHANDARE v. SADHU 189 DADU SHETTIGAR (SHETTY) holding that the finding of fact by the lower appellate A court that the respondents were not gratuitous licensees did not call for interference and no substantial question of law arose for consideration. Therefore, the appellants filed the instant appeals. Allowing the appeal, the Court B HELD: 1.1 Normally this Court will not, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, interfere with finding of facts recorded by the first appellate court, which were not disturbed by the High C Court in second appeal. But what should happen if the first appellate court r
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.