L.N. ASWATHAMA & ANR. versus P. PRAKASH

Citation: [2009] 10 S.C.R. 615 · Decided: 21-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• J 
[2009] 10 S.C.R. 615 
L.N. ASWATHAMA & ANR. 
v. 
P. PRAKASH 
(Civil Appeal No. 4125 of 2009) 
APRIL 21, 2009 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
SUIT: 
A 
B 
Suit for declaration of title, possession, permanent c 
injunction and mesne projects - Plaintiffs came to know of the 
property only when they cleared the bank loan taken by their 
father mortgaging the property - Plaintiffs claimed that 
defendants in unlawful possession - Trial Court decreeing the 
suit - High Cowt reversing it - On appeal, Held : Neither the 0 
title to the property nor the adverse possession thereof proved 
by defendants - Hence Trial Court's well considered judgment 
restored -
High Court's judgment set aside - Adverse 
possession. 
The suit property was purchased by one 'N', who E 
died leaving all his properties to his sons (the plaintiffs) 
under a will. He had mortgaged the suit property as also 
other properties to a Bar.k. 
The plaintiffs were 
prosecuting their studies at the time of their father's 
death. Plaintiffs became aware of the suit property only F 
when they cleared the bank loan and got back the title 
deeds. They traced the suit property and found the 
defendant in unauthorized possession. Therefore, they 
filed the suit for declaration of title, possession, 
permant:nt injunction and mesne profits. The trial court G 
decreed the Suit. On appeal, the High Court reversed the 
trial court's judgment and dismissed the suit. Hence the 
appeal. 
615 
H 
A 
616 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 10 S.C.R. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The High Court has neither discussed the 
evidence relating to 
identity of the 
suit property 
nor 
held that the trial court's finding that plaintiffs 
8 
have established their title and identity of the suit property 
was erroneous. The High Court has rejected the entire 
case of the plaintiffs merely on the ground that in the 
mortgage suit of the Bank, the Katha number of the 
property is wrongly given. The plaintiffs have offered a 
C simple and acceptable explanation in regard to the wrong 
Katha number. [Para 12) [625-A-C] 
2. The first appellate court can re-appreciate 
evidence and record findings differe .. t from those 
recorded by the trial court. It is well settled that if the 
D appraisal of evidence by the trial court suffers from 
material irregularity, as for example when its decision is 
based on mere conjectures and surmises, or when its 
decision relied upon inadmissible evidence or ignores 
material evidence or when it draws inferences and 
E 
conclusions who do not naturally or logically flow from 
the proved facts, the appellate court is bound to interfere 
with the findings of the trial court. It is equally well settled 
that where the trial court has considered the entire 
evidence and recorded several material findings, the first 
F 
appellate court would not reverse them on the basis of 
conjectures and surmises or without analyzing the 
relevant evidence in entirety. As the final court of facts, 
if the first appellate court is reversing the judgment of the 
trjal court, it is bound to independently consider the 
G entire evidence. The High Court has ignored these well 
settled principles. [Para 8) [622-E-H; 623-A] 
H 
3. In law, possession follows title. The plaintiffs 
having established title to the suit property, will be 
entitled to decree for possession, unless their right to the 
L. N. ASWATHAMA & ANR. v. P. PRAKASH 
617 
suit property was extinguished, by reason of defendant A 
being in adverse possession for a period of twelve years 
prior to the suit. [Para 13] [625-E-F] 
4. The sale deed dated 18.11.1985 alleged to have 
been executed by Gowramma (Ex.01 is a certified copy) 
8 
was clearly a fabricated document in regard to an non-
existing site obviously with the intention of laying claim 
over the suit property. The said deed did not convey any 
right, title or interest to t.he defendant in respect of the 
suit property. [Para 15] [627-F-G] 
~· To establish a claim of title by prescription, that is 
adverse possession for 12 years or more, the possession 
of the claimant must be physical/actual, exclusive, open, 
uninterrupted, notorious and hostile to the true owner for 
c 
a period exceeding twelve years. It is also well settled D 
that long and continuous possession by itself would not 
constitute adverse possession if it was either permissive 
possession or possession without animus possidendi. 
The pleas based on title and ad

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