RAMALINGESWARA RAO (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ANR. versus N. MADHAVA RAO & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 6 S.C.R. 472 · Decided: 05-04-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
472
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
T. RAMALINGESWARA RAO (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ANR.
v.
N. MADHAVA RAO & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3408 of 2019)
APRIL 05, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Appeal: Second appeal – Concurrent findings of facts by
courts below – Interference by the High Court – Justification of –
Held: Trial court and the first appellate court on appreciating the
evidence of the parties came to a conclusion that the plaintiffs failed
to prove the ingredients necessary for the grant of perpetual
injunction – When the courts below have recorded concurrent
findings of fact against the plaintiffs, based on appreciation of facts
and evidence, such findings are binding on the High Court – It is
only when such findings are found to be against any provision of
law or against the pleading or evidence or are found to be wholly
perverse, the High Court may interfere in its second appellate
jurisdiction – Thus, the High Court erred in interfering in the
concurrent findings of facts of the courts below.
Injunction: Perpetual injunction – Claim of – On facts,
appellants purchased suit land from one of the co-sharers –
Respondent no. 1-3, sons of another co-sharer, filed suit against
appellants seeking perpetual injunction, rejected by the trial court
and first appellate court, however, allowed by the High Court – On
appeal, held: Possession of one co-sharer is possession of all co-
sharers, it cannot be adverse to them, unless there is a denial of
their right to their knowledge by the person in possession, and
exclusion and ouster following thereon for the statutory period –
Respondents have no case for grant of perpetual injunction – Even
assuming that the respondents claimed to be in possession of the
suit property for claiming injunction, yet they were not entitled to
claim injunction against the other co-sharers over the suit property
– Appellants being the purchasers of the suit property from one of
the co-sharers stepped into the shoes of their co-sharer, thus, had a
[2019] 6 S.C.R. 472
 472
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
473
right to defend their title and possession against the other co-sharer
– High Court erred in interfering in the concurrent findings of the
fact without recording a finding as to why the concurrent findings
of fact are bad in law and why it requires interference – Order
passed by the High Court is set aside and that of the trial court and
first appellate is restored.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The High Court erred in interfering in the
concurrent findings of facts of the two Courts below, which
dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit. The trial court and the first appellate
court on appreciating the evidence of the parties had rightly come
to a conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to prove the ingredients
necessary for the grant of perpetual injunction. [Paras 10, 11]
[476-H; 477-A]
1.2 When the two courts below have recorded concurrent
findings of fact against the plaintiffs, which are based on
appreciation of facts and evidence, such findings being concurrent
in nature are binding on the High Court. It is only when such
findings are found to be against any provision of law or against
the pleading or evidence or are found to be wholly perverse, a
case for interference may call for by the High Court in its second
appellate jurisdiction. Such was not the case made out in the High
Court. It is for this reason, the High Court should not have
interfered in the findings of the two courts below and instead, the
findings should have been upheld by the High Court.
[Paras 12, 13][476-B-D]
2.1 The plaintiffs-respondent Nos.1-3 have no case much
less prima facie for grant of perpetual injunction. Even assuming
that the plaintiffs claimed to be in possession of the suit property
(which the two courts below did not find in their favour) for
claiming injunction, yet they were not entitled to claim injunction
against the other co-sharers over the suit property. The
possession of one co-sharer is possession of all co-sharers, it
cannot be adverse to them, unless there is a denial of their right
to their knowledge by the person in possession, and exclusion
and ouster following thereon for the statutory period. Defendant
Nos. 1 and 2-appellants being the purchasers of the suit property
T. RAMALINGESWARA RAO (DEAD) THR. LRS  v.
N. MADHAVA RAO & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
474
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
from one of the co-sharers stepped into the shoes of their vendor
(co-sharer)

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