R.V.F VENKATACHALA GOUNDER versus ARULMIGU VISWESARASWAMI AND V.P. TEMPLE AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 450 · Decided: 08-10-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
R.V.F. VENKATACHALA GOUNDER 
v. 
ARULMIGU VISWESARASWAMI AND V.P. TEMPLE AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 8, 2003 
B 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
Section JOO-Order 13 Rule 4 CPC-Suit for declaration of title, 
C arrears of rent and possession of suit property-Appel/ant producing 
photocopies of the order of State Commissioner and rent agreement 
between appellant and tenant and the books of accounts in support of 
claiming his title-Trial court and first appellate court holding in favour 
of the appellant on the basis of oral and documentary evidence-High 
Court, in second appeal, reversing the concurrent findings on the ground 
D that the documentary evidence are not originals-Validity of-Held, on 
facts, the High Court has wrongly framed the substantial questions of 1 aw 
on the assumption that the suit property belonged to the temple-The 
admission in evidence of photocopies cannot be questioned since no 
objections were raised by respondent at the time of, tendering them into 
E evidence by the appellant-Respondent failed to discharge its onus to 
prove its title on suit property-Hence, High Court judgment set aside as 
no substantial question of law arose-Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Sections 
11"'" 
34 & 116. 
F 
The property of defendant-respondent no. 1 temple was endowed 
by the forefathers of the plaintiff-appellant. The father of the appellant 
and thereafter the appellant were trustees of the temple and were 
managing the temple property. In 1968, the State Charity Commissioner 
appointed a new set of trustees and a· Chief Executive Officer for the 
temple and removed the appellant from the trusteeship. The suit 
G property, which is situated adjoining to the temple property, was let 
out on rent to defendant-respondent no. 2 by the appellant. Respondent 
no. 2 paid rent to tlie appellant till 1969. Thereafter, at the instance 
of respondent no. I, respondent no. 2 issued a rent notr. in favour of 
the temple attorning the latter as the landlord of the suit property. 
H Respondent no. 1 claimed the suit property on the basis of being part· 
450 
R.V.F. VENKATACHALA GOUNDER v. ARULMIGU VISWESARASWAMI AND V.P. TEMPLE 451 
of the temple property. Appellant filed a suit for declaration of title, A 
arrears of rent for three years immediately preceding the filing of the 
suit and possessio:i of the suit property before Trial Court. Relying 
upon the oral and documentary evidences, the trial court decreed the 
suit in favour of the appellant. This was affirmed by the first appellate 
court. The High Court, in second appeal, reversed the findings of the B 
courts below holding that no reliance could be placed upon the 
documentary evidence produced by the appellant before the lower 
courts. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
c 
HELD: 1. A second appeal in the High Court can be entertained 
only on substantial questions of law and not otherwise. Instead of 
proceeding to decide the issues arising in the suit, the High Court 
assumed the second appellate jurisdiction by erroneously' assuming 
the fact that property belongs to the temple, while framing the D 
substantial questions of law. The question to be determined in the case 
was whether the appellant or the temple had the title to the suit 
property. The questions framed by the High Court did not arise as 
substantial questions of law based on the concurrent findings by the 
two courts below. The judgment of the High Court deserves to be set E 
aside on this ground. [459-B-D] 
2. Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 declares relevant 
the entries in the books of account regularly kept in the course of 
business whenever they refer to a matter into which the Court has to 
enquire. The courts of fact subordinate to the High Court, have not F 
felt the need of any further corroboration before acting upon the 
entries in the ledger books made by the deceased father of the 
appellant. So far as the entries made by the appellant are concerned, 
he has deposed to making the entries and corroborated the same by 
his own statement. The appellant has been believed by the trial court G 
and the first appellate court and his statement has been found to be 
enough corroboration of the entries made by him. No question of law 
arose as would enable the High Court to reverse that finding. The 
entries amply prove that for a length of time, upto the year 1959, the 
appellant's deceased father, and then the appellant was collecting the H 
452 
SUP

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