KRISHNANANDA versus KATTU SIVA ASHRAM AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 1 S.C.R. 1132 · Decided: 18-01-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
KRISHNANANDA 
v. 
KATTU SIVAASHRAMAND ORS. 
JANUARY 18, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.] 
Appeal-Second appeal-Maintainability-Suit-Plea of adverse 
possession by one of the defendants-Title of both plaintiff as well as the 
defendant rejected by trial court-No appeal by that defendant-In first 
appeal title of that defendant denied-Second appeal by him dismissed-
On appeal, held: Second appeal by the defendant was not maintainable. 
Respondent No. I-Plaintiff filed a suit against defendant No. 4-
Appellant. Appellant claimed title over the land by adverse possession. The 
claim of the appellant was negated by Trial Court. Suit was also dismissed. 
D ., Appellant did not prefer any appeal thereagainst. In appeal, the First 
Appellate Court opined that both respondent-No.I and appellant had not 
E 
acquired any title to the property. Appellant filed second appeal thereagainst 
1 
and the same was dismissed on the ground that appeal was not maintainable 
because the appellant did not file any suit regarding his claim nor did trial 
court give any relief in that behalf. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: T~e second appeal filed at the instance of the appellant herein 
was not maintainable as the First Appellate Court had merely arrived at 
F 
certain findings which might be relevant for the purpose of determination 
of an issue by and between the appellant and the original plaintiff, but the 
same were not relevant for determination of an i~sue amongst the defendants 
inter se. Moreover, no decree against the appellant was preferred. 
[Para 5) [1133-F-G) 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6196 of2000. 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 20.8.1998 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Madras in S.A. No. 1148/1998. 
H 
Atul Y. Chitale, Suchitra Atul Chitale, Sujeeta Srivastava and Madhup 
1132 
-~-
( 
_.._ 
) 
KRISHNANANDA v. KATTU SIVAASHRAM [SINHA, J.] 
1133 
Singhal for the Appellant 
R. Sundaravaradan, Sr. Adv., V.G. Pragasam, S. Vallinayagam, V. 
Krishna Murthy, V. Balaj i and A. T.M. Sampath with him for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. : l. The defendant No. 4 in the original suit is the 
appellant before us. The plaintiff is the first respondent herein. The suit of 
the original plaintiff was dismissed. The defendant No. 4 did not prefer any 
appeal thereagainst. 
2. Appellant claimed title over the land by adverse possession. The 
said claim was negatived by the learned Trial Judge. The First Appellate 
Court, however, opined that both the plaintiff (respondent No. I herein) and 
defendant No. 4 (appellant herein) had not acquired any title to the property. 
3. Aggrieved by certain findings arrived at by the First Appellate 
Court, the appellant preferred a second appeal before the High Court of 
Madras which was dismissed summarily. The High Court opined that as 
defendant No. 4 did not file any suit nor the Trial Court having given any 
relief in that behalf, the appeal was not maintainable. 
4. The appellant is before us aggrieved by the said order of the High 
Court. 
5. There cannot be any doubt that the second appeal filed a the 
instance of the appellant herein was not maintainable as the First Appellate 
Court had merely arrived at certain findings which might be relevant for the 
purpose of determination of an issue by and between the appellant and the 
original plaintiff, but the same were not relevant for determination of an issue 
amongst the defendants inter se. Moreover, no decree against the appellant 
was preferred. 
6. It is stated before us by Mr. Sundaravaradan, learned senior counsel 
appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4, that in view of the fact that 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
the aforementioned Raman Pillai died without leaving behind any issue; 
escheat proceeding has been initiated. If that be so, there cannot be any 
doubt, whatsoever, that the appellant herein would be entitled to raise all 
H 
A 
B 
1134 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 1 S.C.R. 
contentions in regard to his title in appropriate proceedings, if initiated 
against him. He may even bring a fresh proceedings against the said 
respondent. 
7. The appellant has sought to produce before us a purported Will 
dated 5.1.1965, executed by the said Raman Pillai. We, however, reject the 
prayer of the appellant to take the said Will on record as the contention that 
Raman Pillai bequeathed his entire property in his 

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