HIRABAI (D) THR. L.RS. & ORS. versus RAMNIWAS BANSILAL LAKHOTIYA (D) BY L.RS. & ORS

Citation: [2019] 6 S.C.R. 1052 · Decided: 25-04-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1052
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
  HIRABAI (D) THR. L.RS. & ORS.
v.
RAMNIWAS BANSILAL LAKHOTIYA (D) BY L.RS. & ORS
(Civil  Appeal No.4282 of 2019)
APRIL 25, 2019
      [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Suit – Collusive suit to avoid execution of decree – Defendant
No.3/respondent No.3 sold the suit property to one ‘B’ by registered
sale deed dated 07.10.1965 – On death of ‘B’, defendant No.1 &
2/respondent Nos. 1 & 2 inherited the suit property – Some dispute
arose between defendant no.3 and defendant nos. 1 & 2 – Thereafter,
defendant No.1 & 2 filed suit against defendant No.3 for declaration
of title over the suit property – Trial Court by judgment/decree dated
31.01.1975 held that defendant Nos.1 & 2 were the owners of suit
property – This decree attained finality – Thereafter, two plaintiffs
(sisters of defendant No.3) filed a suit against defendant No.1 & 2
for declaration that decree dated 31.01.1975 and sale deed dated
07.10.1965 were not binding on both the plaintiffs – Suit dismissed
by the Trial Court – First appeal and second appeal were also
dismissed by the First Appellate Court and the High Court
respectively – On appeal, held: All three Courts were right in their
reasoning and conclusion – It was a collusive suit filed at the behest
of defendant No.3 through his two sisters and family members to
avoid execution of a valid decree dated 31.01.1975 – The sale of
the suit property was made by the Karta-defendant No.3 for legal
necessity and benefit of the family, the same was binding on all the
members of the family including the plaintiffs – Thus, the findings
were recorded on proper appreciation of facts and law and hence
no interference required.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. According to this Court, all the three Courts (Civil
Judge, first Appellate Court and the High Court) were right in
their reasoning and the conclusion on all the factual and legal
issues raised by defendant Nos.1 and 2 and there is no ground to
differ with their reasoning and the conclusion. [Para 19]
[1056-F-G]
[2019] 6 S.C.R. 1052
1052
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1053
2. First, the findings impugned in the appeal being
concurrent in nature, were not only binding on the High Court
while deciding the second appeal and were rightly held to be so
binding but such findings are binding on this Court too; Second,
even otherwise, all the findings have been recorded on proper
appreciation of facts and law and hence do not call for any
interference in this appeal as detailed infra.  [Para 20]
[1056-G-H; 1057-A]
3. Third, the suit in question was apparently a collusive
suit filed at the behest of defendant No.3 through his two sisters
and family members to avoid execution of a valid decree dated
31.01.1975 passed by the competent Civil Court against
defendant No.3 in relation to the suit property. Fourth, in the
light of findings recorded by the Trial Court in the previous suit,
the present suit was rightly dismissed by all the Courts below.
[Paras 21 and 22][1057-B-C]
4. Fifth, once it was held that the sale of the suit property
was made by the Karta- defendant No.3 and it was made for legal
necessity and the benefit of the family, the same was binding on
all the members of the family including the plaintiffs.[Para 25]
5. Sixth, the plaintiffs failed to plead and prove that the sale
in question was not for the benefit of family or that there was no
legal necessity for such sale or as to on what basis, they claimed
share in the suit property.  On the other hand, defendant Nos.1
and 2 were able to prove that the sale was for the legal necessity
and benefit of the family.  [Para 25][1057-G-H]
6. Seventh, the plaintiffs themselves admitted in their
evidence that they filed a civil suit at the instigation of defendant
No.3-their real brother. This clearly indicates that the suit was
not filed for a bona fide cause but it was a collusive suit filed by
the plaintiffs to overcome the valid decree obtained by the
defendant Nos.1 and 2 against defendant No.3 and to save
defendant No.3 from its execution.  [Para 26][1058-A-B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:  Civil Appeal No.4282
of 2019
From the Judgment and Order  dated  19.12.2008 of the High
Court of  Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Second Appeal
No. 177 of 1988.
  HIRABAI (D) THR. L.RS.  v. RAMNIWAS BANSILAL
LAKHOTIYA (D) BY L.RS..
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1054
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv., Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, M. K.
De

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