LexRAMAKRISHNA RAO (DEAD) BY LR. versus RAI MURARI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 981 A RAMAKRISHNA RAO (DEAD) BY LR. ,. v. RAI MURARI (Civil Appeal Nos. 454-455 of 2002) B JANUARY 21, 2008 (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: * " c Permanent injunction -Appellant filing suit for permanent injunction restraining respondent from interfering with peaceful possession over suit property - Dismissed by trial Court - Reversed by first appellate Court - Affirmed by High Court with direction to appellant to refund certain amount as paid by respondent's wife allegedly in terms of an agreement - D Correctness of - Held: Incorrect - High Court proceeded on totally untenable premises in recording finding contrary to -~ material on record - Direction clearly indefensible - Hence, i. set aside. E Appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction for direction to defendant-respondent from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. The appeal filed thereagainst was allowed by the first appellate F court. Appeal filed thereagainst was dismissed by the High Court directing appellants for payment of certain amount _;.+ to the respondent. Revision Petition was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeals. Allowing the appeals, the Court G HELD: 1.1 The High Court proceeded on the basis as if the suit for injunction was filed on the ground that .., plaintiff had entered into an agreement with defendant's wife. On the basis of the agreement the defendant's wife claimed to have been put in possession of the land and H 981 RAMAKRISHNA RAO (DEAD) BY LR. v. RAI MURARI 982 [PASAYAT, J.] ~ the right to property cannot be taken away by the plaintiff A by way of injunction or otherwise. This shows complete non application of mind by the High Court. This is not the case of the plaintiff in the suit but as a matter of fact it was the defendant's case. To add to the vulnerability, the High Court found that the agreement was found to be valid by B the first appellate court and, therefore, it was the duty of o\ the plaintiff to return the amount with interest at the rate ~ of 12% per annum. Even on a deep scanning of the first appellate court's order it is noticed that there was no such finding recorded. It is clear from the order of the first c appellate Court that the stand of the plaintiff about the alleged existence of an agreement for sale was not established. (Para - 3) [983-E, F, G, H; 984-A] · 1.2 Since the High Court proceeded on totally untenable premises and recorded findings which are D ~ contrary to materials on record and findings recorded, the __ , direction for refund of money is clearly indefensible and is set aside. (Para - 5) [985-B, C] CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.454- E 455 of 2002. From the final Judgment and Order dated 13.02.1998 and 7.3.2001 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular Second Appeal No. 183 of 1994 and R.P. No. 856 of 2000 ~- respectively. F S.N. Bhat, N.P.S. Panwar and D.P. Chaturvedi for the Appellant. M.M. Kashyap for the Respondent. Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J._1. Challenge in these appeals is G ~ to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court who while dismissing the Second appeal filed by the respondent has given certain directions which according to the appellant could not have been given in the absence of any finding. H 983 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 1 S.C.R. A 2. A suit for permanent injunction was filed by the appellant, "t with the prayer to direct the defendant, respondent herein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule land. The trial court dismissed the suit but the first appellate court allowed the appeal. The High Court in the Second B appeal as noted above dismissed the same but directed payment of certain amounts by the appellants to the respondent. The directions in this regard read as follows: ), "Now the defendant's grievance is that the plaintiff " c could not have the benefit of the property as well as money paid by the defendant's wife on 19.6.1983. In equity and in lavy, inasmuch as agreement is found to be valid by the first Appellate Court, it is the duty of the plaintiff to return the money of Rs.5,000/- together with the interest at 12% per annum. Such amount shall be charged in the property. D The plaintiff is directed to pa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.