NAVANEETHAMMAL versus ARJUNA CHETTY

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 582 · Decided: 06-09-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. VENKATASWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

'' 
A 
NA V ANEETHAMMAL 
v. 
ARJUNA CHETIY 
SEPTEMBER 6, 1998 
B 
. [N.P. SINGH ANDK. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.) 
Limita,tion Act, 1908 : Article 139-Suit for title and posses-
sion-Property sold-Vendor and vendee giving notice to the tenant-Adverse 
possession cl~imed by tenant and rejitsal to pay rent to the vendee-Suit 
C decreed by Trial Cowt-Confinned i11 appeal-High Court reversing the 
same-On appeal, held: limitation starts from the day tenant setting up hostile 
title-Suit filed within five years thereof-Hence within limitation 
, ' 
I 
D 
E 
F 
period-Tenants' possession after the lease period is only pem1issive-17zere-
f ore High Coult not justified in i11teifering with the judgments of Courts below. 
" 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Section 100-Concurrent findings of 
courts below-;-High Court not to i11terfere unless wa1ra11ted by compelling 
reason~igh Court not expected to re-appreciate evide11ce just to replace 
findings of lower courts. 
Appellant-Plaintiff tiled suit for declaration of her title to the suit 
property and recovery of possession. The respondent was in possession 
of the suit p~operty as a tenant under a registered lease de;d. The property 
was sold and the vendor issued notice to the tenant intimating him the fact 
' 
of the sale to the plaintiff. The purchaser also issued notice to the tenant 
to pay rent as a lessee. The tenant/respondent denied his status as lessee 
and his liability to pay rent as he has set title in himself on the suit 
. ' 
. 
property after the expiry of lease. 
The Trial Court held that the plaintiff is entitled to the suit property 
and directed the defendant tenant to surrender possession. The appellate 
G court confirmed the decree of the trial court. 
In second appeal High Court reversed the findings of the lower 
courts on the ground that the courts below failed to come to correct 
conclusion on.the basis of oral! and documentary evidence. 
H 
In appeal to this court it was contended by the appellant that the 
582 
NAVANEETHAMMALv. ARJUNACHETfY[K VENKATASWAMI,J.] 583 
High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC in revers-
A 
ing the concurrent findings of the courts below. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The findings rendered by the lower appellate court were 
very well based on materials placed before it and the contrary conclusions B 
reached by the High Court are not sustainable. [588-G] 
2. Interference with the concurrent findings of the courts below, by 
the High Court under Section 100 CPC must be avoided unless warranted 
by compelling reasons. [586-G] 
c 
3.1. From the facts it is seen that an attempt was made by the 
defendant-respondent that he had surrendered the suit property after the 
expiry of the lease and thereafter reentered the suit land and continued in 
possession in his own right. However, this was not accepted by the trial 
court as well as by the appellate court for well founded reasons. That being D 
the positions the possession by the defendant after the expiry of the lease 
was only permissive and will not give cause for prescribing title by adverse 
possession. Further for the first time while replying to the notice by the 
vendor, the defendant openly set up a hostile title and the suit having been 
filed within five years therefrom is not barred by limitation. Further, no E 
plea contending that the suit was barred under Article 139 of the Limita-
tion Act, 1908 was taken by the defendant in the Trial Court. [592-D-E] 
'CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1647 of 
1980. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8/22.2.80 of the Madras High 
Court S.A. No. 1801 of 1976. 
K. Rajendra Chowdary and S. Srinivasan for the Appellant. 
F 
R. Sundarvardhan, C. Balasubramanian, Y. Subba Rao, Ms. Asha G 
Nair and K. Ram Kumar for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
K. VENKATASWAMI, J. The plaintiff who filed a suit on 13.6.1962 
for declaration of her title to the suit property and for recovery of posses-
H 
584 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
sion is the appellant herein. The suit property is an extent of 1.13 acre out 
of 3.39 acres in Survey No. 330/2 in Ulli Village, Gudiyatham Taluk, North 
Arco! District, Tamil Nadu. It was purchased by the plaintiff under 
registered sale deed dated 21.3.1957 from one Mohd. Ghouse. The respon-
dent herein who was the defendant in the suit admittedly was let in to 
I 
B possession of the suit property along with the balance o

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