P. SWAROOPA RANI versus M. HARI NARAYANA@ HARI BABU

Citation: [2008] 3 S.C.R. 900 · Decided: 04-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off

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

Judgment (excerpt)

(2008] 3 S.C.R. 900 
,. 
A 
P. SWAROOPA RANI 
( 
II. 
M. HARi NARAYANA@ HARi BABU 
(Civil Appeal No. 1734 of 2008) 
B 
MARCH 04, 2008 
[S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
.. 
" 
High Court : Suit for specific performance of agreement 
of sale of suit property - Plaintiff placed on record a receipt 
c based on which allegedly he had obtained possession of suit 
... 
property - Trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that 
plaintiff failed to prove authenticity of the receipt -Interim order 
by High Court to the effect that plaintiff would remain in 
possession of the suit property subject to deposit of Rs. 30, 000 
D p.m. - Interference with - Held: Not called for- High Court is 
~ r 
a final court of fact and it may go into correctness of findings 
arrived at by trial court - A fortiori it can set aside findings of 
court below that the receipt was forged one. 
Civil and criminal proceedings -
Simultaneous 
E proceeding - Permissibility of - Held: Permissible. 
Appellant-defendant agreed to sell the suit property 
for Rs. 64 lacs to respondent-plaintiff. Respondent made 
part payment of Rs. 32.97 lacs. As no sale deed was 
"' 
executed in terms of the agreement, respondent filed suit 
I... 
F for specific performance of the contract. During hearing 
, 
of the suit, a receipt (Ex A.15) was filed showing payment 
of Rs. 4.03 lacs. On the basis of the receipt, allegedly 
possession of the suit property was obtained by the 
respondent. The Trial Judge, however, dismissed the suit 
G holding that respondent failed to prove that he came into 
possession of suit property in pursuance of the part 
performance of the contract and that he paid Rs. 4.03 lacs 
,.. 
towards part payment of sale consideration. In· vi_ew of· 
the said observations, appellant lodged FIR alleging that 
H 
900 
P. SWAROOPA RANI v. M. HARi NARAYANA@ 
901 
HARi BABU 
( 
the said receipt was a fabricated document. Respondent A 
I. 
filed appeal and application for interim stay of the 
operation of the judgment. 
On 24.5.2006, High Court granted interim direction 
to the effect that the respondent would be entitled to B 
remain in possession of the suit property subject to 
x• 
deposit of a sum of Rs. 30,000/- per month. 
) 
Respondent filed Misc. Petition in the said appeal for 
modification of order dated 24.5.2006 which was allowed 
by order dated 17.7.2006. 
c 
By another order dated 17 .7 .2006, the High Court 
stayed the criminal proceedings. 
Both the orders dated 24.5.2006 and 17.7.2006 were 
challenged before this Court. 
D 
, 
Dismissing the appeal against order dated 24.5.2006 
I 
and allowing the appeal against order dated 17.7.2006, 
the Court 
HELD : 1. The High Court indisputably is a final court E 
of fact. It may go into the correctness or otherwise of the 
findings arrived at by the Trial Judge. A' fortiori it can set 
aside the findings of the court below that Ex. A.15 is a 
forged document or its authenticity could not be proved 
,) 
_.J\. 
by the respondent. It is, however, well-settled that in a 
given case, civil proceedings and criminal proceedings F 
can proceed simultaneously. Whether civil proceedings 
or criminal proceedings shall be stayed depends upon 
the fact and circumstances of each case. It is furthermore 
trite that s.195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. would not be attracted 
where a forged document has been filed. [Paras 12-14) G 
[906-A, B, C, DJ 
·~ . 
M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras AIR 1954 SC 397 Iqbal 
Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (2005) 4 SCC 370; 
Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Assn. of H 
902 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 
A Chartered Certified Accountants (2005) 12 SCC 226 -
relied on. 
2. Filing of an independent criminal proceeding, 
although initiated in terms of some observations made 
by the civil court, is not barred under any statute. The High 
B Court, therefore, was not correct in staying the 
investigation in. the said matter. The simultaneous 
proceedings of a civil and a criminal case is permissible. 
[Paras 15, 16, 19} (908-C, D; 910-A] 
C 
3. The interim order dated 24.05.2006 as modified by 
an order dated 17.07.2006 need not be interfered with 
particularly in view of the fact that according to the 
respondent it had made a payment of Rs. 35.47 lacs 
besides the disputed payment of Rs. 4.03 lacs and made 
0 deposits of Rs. 67 .54 lacs. (Para 20) (910-B, CJ 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1734 
of 2008. 
From the final Order dated 17/7/2006 of the High Co

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