MAKHAN LAL versus ASHARFI LAL AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 361 · Decided: 25-03-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

MAKHANLAL 
A 
v. 
ASHARFI LAL AND ORS. 
MARCH 25, 1997 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : 
S.10(}-S econd appeal-<:oncwrent findings off act-Interference with-
Suit between family members for injunction, possession and damages-
C 
Plaintiff claiming that defendant were licensees of apart of the house and 
had no right to be in possession after revocation of licence-Defendants 
claiming to have contributed half of the amount in constniction of the house 
and house got mutated in 1957 in joint names-Trial Court and appellate 
Court on considering oral and documentary evidence dismissed the 
suit-High Court in second appeal went into questions off act and recorded D 
the findings against plaintiffs and reversed the decree-ff eld, trial court and 
the first appellate court having appreciated the evidence came to the findings 
off act which cannot be characterised to be sunnises; nor can they be said to 
have ignored the material evidenc~In the circumstances, High Court erred 
in interfering with the concurrent findings off act-Judgment of High Court set E 
aside and that of first appellate Court and trial court confinned. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2594 of 
1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.7.96 of the Allahabad High F 
Court in S.A. No. 1407 of 1990. 
tion, 
Arvind Minocha for the Appellant. 
B.D. Agarwal and Shrish Kr. Misra for the Respondents. 
G 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had filed a suit for permanent injunc-
possession and damages against the appe!Iant and the proforma H 
' 
361 
362 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 3 S.C.R. 
A respondent No. 3 on the premise that they were licensees in respect of part 
of the house belonging to Baij Nath and, therefore, had no manner of right 
whatsoever to be in possession after the revocation of the licence. The 
appellant set up the plea that the contributed half of the amount in the 
constriction of the house along with Baij Nath and that he has has been 
B residing therein ever since. The house also was got mutated in 1957 in the 
Joint name of himself and Baij Nath and, therefore, the injunction sought 
for could not he granted. Both the trial Court as well as the first appellate 
court had negatived the case of the respondents and dismissed the suit. In 
the second appeal, the learned single Judge of the High Court framed two 
questions for consideration, namely, whether merely by contributing some 
C amount towards construction of the disputed house, the appellant can 
claim half share in the house and whether the judgment of the two courts 
below are the result of total mis-reading the evidence and of recording the 
finding while ignoring the oral as well as documentary evidence on record? 
Pursuant to framing the above questions, the learned Judge, as if he were 
D the First Appellate Court, has gone into the questions of fact and recorded 
the findings against the appellant. Thus, he reversed the decree of the trial 
court and the appellate Court. 
E 
F 
It is contended for the appellant, on the basis of the documentary 
evidence adduced in proof of the mutation and his enjoyment ever since 
1957 during the life time of Baij Nath, who did not even object to his being 
in possession and enjoyment of the half share in the house, that the view 
taken by the High Court is not correct. He also pointed out that the finding 
of the High Court that the material evidence was ignored by the courts 
below is not correct as the evidence has been appreciated and the High 
Court came to the conclusion that the respondents had not established 
their case. 
It is contended for the respondents/plaintiffs, on the other hand, that 
the evidence of Ram Pyari, the mother of the parties was not properly 
considered. She was the best person to show how the property was enjoyed 
G and the other evidence also was not properly considered. On the basis of 
surmises, the trial Court and the appellate Court had come to a wrong 
conclusion. Therefore, it is a substantial mistake of law which the High 
Court has rightly corrected. 
H 
Having considered the respective contention, the question that arises 
MAKHAN LAL v. ASHARFI LAL 
363 
for consideration is whether the High Court is right in disturbing the A 
concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial Court and the appellate 
Court 1 It is not in dispute that material documents had been filed, as 
indicated in 

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