GOVINDAMMAL (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. versus VAIDIYANATHAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2018] 11 S.C.R. 1092 · Decided: 23-10-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1092
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
GOVINDAMMAL (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.
v.
VAIDIYANATHAN AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5276 of 2008)
OCTOBER 23, 2018
[N. V. RAMANA AND MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.]
Suit:
Suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction for
restraining the defendants from entering ‘A Schedule’ property
(which is 50% of ‘B Schedule’ property) – In the alternative partition
of half share in ‘B Schedule’ property was sought – ‘B Schedule’
property was owned by two brothers – Partition of ‘B Schedule’
property done in the year 1912 – As per partition, 50% of the ‘B
Schedule’ property i.e. ‘A Schedule’ property came to the share of
predecessors of the plaintiffs – The other 50% share went to the
other brother, which was later sold in Court auction to predecessor-
in-interest of the defendants – Plea of  defendants that their
predecessor-in-interest had purchased the entire ‘B Schedule’
property in the Court auction; and that defendants’ title was already
declared in two suits filed by a temple and a school against the
defendants (wherein plaintiffs were also made party as defendants)
and in the cross-suit filed by the defendants against the School –
Trial Court decreed the suit and granted the alternative relief of
partition – In appeal, order of trial court was reversed by Single
Judge of High Court – Division Bench of High Court decreed the
suit – On appeal, held: It is not disputed that partition of ‘B Schedule’
property took place through a registered deed between families of
two brothers – 50% share was inherited by plaintiffs – The 50%
share of other brother was put in court auction which was purchased
by father of defendant – What could be sold in auction was only
50% of ‘B Schedule’ property and not the share of plaintiffs i.e. ‘A
Schedule’ property – The suits by and against the School and by
the temple did not decide the title of defendants qua the plaintiffs
as the question of inter se title between them was neither in issue
nor was required to be decided in those suits – Documents on record
do not show exclusive possession of either of the parties – Plaintiffs
have satisfactorily proved that they are the owners of the ‘A Schedule’
property.
1092
[2018] 11 S.C.R. 1092
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1093
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
s.11 – Res judicata – Applicability of – Between co-
defendants – Held: For applying the principle of res judicata  between
co-defendants, there must be conflict of interest between the
defendants; it must be necessary to decide the conflict in order to
give the relief to plaintiff; and the question between the defendants
must have been finally decided – In the facts of the present case,
principle of res judicata is not applicable.
Evidence:
Admission – Evidentiary value – Held: Admission is the best
piece of evidence – However, admission can always be explained,
unless such admission gives rise to the principle of estoppel –
Estoppel.
Doctrine:
Doctrine of caveat emptor – Applicability of.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is not in dispute that the entire property of
3.18 acres (now reduced to 2.72 acres) was owned by two brothers
‘P’ and ‘C’. It is also not in dispute that a partition took place
between the families of the two brothers through a registered
partition under which each of them got 50% of the property which
ultimately amounted to 1.36 acres each. 50% of the entire
property had fallen to the share of the sons of ‘P’ and the
remaining 50% remained with ‘C’. Plaintiffs have inherited 50%
of the property, i.e., to the extent of 1.36 acres from ‘P’. It seems
‘C’ fell into debt and his property in question was brought to sale
through court auction. Father of the defendant was the purchaser
in this court auction. Thus, what could be sold in the court auction
was only 50% of 2.72 acres which was held by ‘C’ i.e. 1.36 acres.
The remaining 50% of the property (i.e. ‘A’ Schedule) which
vested with the predecessor of plaintiffs could not be sold in the
court auction.  [Para 5]  [1101-D-E, F-G; 1102-A-B]
1.2  In absence of the judgment passed in suit which
ultimately ended in court sale, it cannot be said as to whether the
entire property was the subject matter of the court sale or not.
Since ‘C’ was the judgment debtor, at the most, only his share in
the property could be sold and it is not open for the purchaser to
GOVINDAMMAL (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. v.
VAIDIYANATHAN AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1094
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
co

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