RAMANUJA NAIDU versus V. KANNIAH NAIDU AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] 3 S.C.R. 239 · Decided: 12-03-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

RAMANUJA NAIDU 
v. 
V. KANNIAH NAIDU AND ANR. 
MARCH 12, 1996 
(M.M. PUNCHHI AND KS. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] 
Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Section JOO-Second Appeal-Scope 
of-Concurrent findings of fact of trial court and first appellant court-cannot 
A 
B 
be inteifmed with by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction u/s 100 C 
CPC. 
The respondent plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his title to 
the suit property and for recovery of possession of the same alleging that 
the suit property belonged to the second defendant and he subsequently 
sold the suit property to him by sale deed Ext.A·l dated 5.6.1967 with D 
direction to redeem Ext.B-1, mortgage; that the second defendant executed 
~· 
a sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant dating it as one excuted on 
• 
., 5.5.1967, that the sale deed executed in his favour is anterior to that 
executed in favour of 1st defendant and so the first defendant had no title 
to the suit property. The suit was dismissed. In appeal, the judgment and 
deceree of the trial court were affirmed. The Subordinate Judge held that E 
the sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant was executed earlier in point 
of time to the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff and that on the 
date of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, the second defendant had 
no subsisting title to the suit property and the plaintiff did not acquire 
,.. valid title to the suit property and therefore the sale deed in his favour F 
was held to be invalid in law. In second appeal, Single Judge of the High 
Court, characterising the judgments and decrees of the courts below as 
perverse, reversed the concurrent judgments and on reappreciating the 
entire evidence held, that the sale deed executed by the second defendant 
In favour of the plaintiff was a document executed earlier, there being no 
collusion between the plaintiff and the second defendant, it was 'not G 
'\ __ ._ probable' that the first defendant obtained the sale deed on 5.5.1967. The 
first defendant in the suit bas filed this appeal against the judgment of the 
Single Judge. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
239 
H 
240 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD : 1.1. Concurent findings of fact of trial court and first 
appellate court cannot be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of 
its jurisdiction u/s 100 of Civil Procedure Code. In the instant case, in 
interfering with the concurrent findings of facts of the lower court, the 
Single Judge of the High Court acted in excess of the jurisdiction vested 
B in him u/s 100 of the Code. The Single Judge totally erred in his approach 
to the entire question, and in reappraising and reappreciating the entire 
evidence, and in considering the probabilities of the case, to hold that the 
judgements of the courts below ware 'perverse' and that the plaintiff was 
entitled to the declaration of title to suit property and recovery of posses-
sion. The courts below found, on the basis of oral and documentary 
C evidence, that the sale deed obtained by the lst defendant on 5.5.1967 was 
genuine and valid and that first defendant discharged the mortgage, took 
possession of the suit property and thereafter cultivated the came; that 
there was collusion between the plaintiff and the second defendant and so, 
the sale deed pruported to have been executed by the second defendant in 
D 
favour of the plaintiff was not valid in law. These concurrent findings of 
facts of the courts below, were based on oral and documentary evidence. 
The Single Judge on reappreciating the evidence took the view that 'it was 
not probable ' that the document in favour of the lst defendant 'would 
have' been executed on 5.6.1967. In second appeal, the Single Judge of the 
E 
High Court totally erred in making such an approach. Besides, the Single 
Judge totally ignored the concurrent findings of the courts below that the 
lst defendant discharged the mortgage on 10.5.1967, took possession of the 
property and cultivated the same and the said finding was based on the 
oral evidence of mortgage and independent witnesses. There was no 
F 
evidence contra. The concurrant findings of the courts below that sale deed 
in favour of the 1st defendant was earlier in point of time and was genuine 
and valid was a finding of fact. Such a finding was not open to challenge 
in Second Appeal. The Single Judge of the High Court totally misconceived 
his jurisdiction in deciding the second appeal under Section 100 of 

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