LAXMIDEVAMMA & ORS. versus RANGANATH & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 1 S.C.R. 921 · Decided: 20-01-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 1 S.C.R. 921 
LAXMIDEVAMMA & ORS. 
v. 
RANGANATH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 176 of 2015) 
JANUARY 20, 2015 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s.100- Second appeal 
- Concurrent findings of fact - Plaintiffs seeking declaration 
A 
B 
of title over 'A' schedule property and that the defendants 
C 
encroached upon 'B' schedule property - Concurrent findings 
by courts below that 'A' schedule property was earmarked for 
road and no road was formed and the plaintiffs proved their 
ownership to 'A' schedule property - In second appeal, High 
Court held that declaration to plaintiffs' right cannot be granted D 
since first plaintiff earmarked 'A' schedule property for road 
and that she could not have full fledged right - Sustainability 
of- Held: Not sustainable - In the light of concurrent findings 
of fact by courts below, based on oral and documentary 
evidence, no substantial questions of Jaw arose in the High 
E 
Court and there was no substantial ground for re-appreciation 
of evidence. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: Based upon oral and documentary 
F 
evidences, the courts below recorded concurrent 
findings that plaintiffs established their right in 'A' 
schedule property and that the plaintiffs are the owners 
of 'A' schedule property. The first appellate court 
recorded the findings of fact that defendants encroached G 
upon suit 'A' schedule property and ordered delivery of 
possession of 'B' schedule property. The said finding 
does not suffer from any perversity. In the light of 
concurrent findings of fact, no substantial questions of 
921 
H 
922 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
law arose in the High Court and there was no substantial 
ground for re-appreciation of evidence. While so, the High 
Court proceeded to observe that the first plaintiff has 
earmarked the 'A' schedule property for road and that she 
could not have full fledged right and on that premise 
B 
proceeded to hold that declaration to plaintiffs' right 
cannot be granted. In exercise of jurisdiction under 
Section 100 C.P.C., concurrent findings of fact could not 
be upset by the High eourt unless the findings so 
recorded are shown to be perverse. The High Court did 
c not keep in view that the concurrent findings recorded 
by the courts below, are based on oral and documentary 
evidence and the judgment of the High Court cannot be 
sustained. The judgment passed by the High Court is set 
aside and that by the courts below is restored. [Para 13, 
D 15] [928-G, B, E, H; 829-A-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 176 
of 2015. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2012 of the 
E 
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in RSA No. 297 of 2007. 
F 
G. V. Chandrashekar, Anjana Chandrashekar for the 
Appellants. 
S. N. Bhat, for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the 
judgment dated 27.9.2012 passed by the High Court of 
Karnataka in R.S.A. No.297/2007, wherein the High Court 
G allowed the appeal in part, modifying the concurrent judgment 
and decree passed by the courts below and holding that the 
appellants-plaintiffs are entitled to compensation for the space 
earmarked for road as and when the competent authority 
acquires the same. 
H 
LAXMIDEVAMMA & ORS. v. RANGANATH & ORS. 
923 
[R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
2. Appellants-plaintiffs are the owners of the revenue land A 
bearing Survey No.1/1 of Chikmagalur village which was 
converted for non-agricultural purpose under the order dated 
2.4.1987 of the Deputy Commissioner, Chikmagalur. Layout 
was formed from the above said land and the site Nos.12 and 
13 and portions of site Nos.11 and 14 were sold to the first B 
defendant by the appellants-plaintiffs by executing two sale 
deeds dated 11. 7 .1988 and 3.1.1992. To the south of the 
property sold to the respondents-defendants, 'A' schedule 
property as shown in the suit was earmarked for the purpose 
of road. However, the City Development Authority did not c 
approve the same and hence no road was formed. Case of the 
appellants-plaintiffs is that since no road was formed, they 
continued to be the owners of the 'A' schedule property and 
they are the absolute owners of the same. 
3. In the year 1992, first respondent-defendant sold the D 
property purchased from the appellants-plaintiffs to second and 
third defendants who constructed a house on the same 
alongwith a compound wall. Grievance of 

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