SEBASTIAO LUIS FERNANDES (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. versus K.V.P. SHASTRI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 11 S.C.R. 1076 · Decided: 10-12-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 11 S.C.R. 1076 
A 
SEBASTIAO LUIS FERNANDES (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. 
& ORS. 
B 
v. 
K.V.P. SHASTRI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6183 of 2001) 
DECEMBER 10, 2013. 
[G.5. SINGHVI, V. GOPALA GOWDA AND 
C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
C 
Evidence Act, 1872: 
ss.101 and 102 - Burden of proof - Suit for declaration 
that plaintiff was owner and in possession of 113rd of suit 
property- Held: It was upon plaintiff-appellants to furnish proof 
D regarding ownership of 1/3rd share of suit property and 
discharge their burden ofproofas per ss. 101 and 102 - It 
was primarily and essentially necessary for plaintiff-appellants 
to establish their claim of ownership before they could invite 
the court to address itself to the issue of their challenge to title 
of defendants-respondents to suit properly - Plaintiff-
E appellants having failed to do so, their entire claim was liable 
to be rejected - Trial court and first appellate court erred in 
assuming certain facts, which are not in existence, to come 
to erroneous conclusion in the absence of title document in 
justification of claim of plaintiff and ignored the pleadings of 
F defendants though they have specifically denied ownership 
right claimed by plaintiff in respect of suit property. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
G 
s. 100 - High Court framing substantial questions of law 
and while answering the same in favour of defendants, setting 
aside concurrent findings of both the courts below - Held: High 
Court has rightly come to the conclusion that substantial 
questions of law were to be answered in the negative, holding 
H 
1076 
SEBASTIAO LUIS FERNANDES (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. v. 1077 
KVP. SHASTRI (DEAD) THR. LRS. 
that since plaintiff-appellants have not produced any 
A 
document of title in relation to suit property, grant of decree 
. in their favour is erroneous in. law - Substantial questions of 
law framed by High Court at the _time of admission of second 
appeal is based on law laid down by Supreme Court -
Therefore, High Court was justified in recording cogent and 
B 
. valid reasons to annul the concurrent findings of courts below 
and in holding that non-appreciation of pleadings and 
· evidence on record by courts below rendered their finding on 
the contentious issues/points as perverse and arbitrary, and, 
therefore, the same have been rightly set aside by High Court c 
by answering the substantial questions of law in favour of 
defendants - There is, therefore, no reason to interfere with 
the judgment and decree passed by High Court. 
In a suit by plaintiff for declaration that she was 
lawful owner and in possession of 1/3 of the suit property D 
and consequential relief of cancellation of registration in 
favour of defendants-respondents in respect of 1/3 share 
in suit scheduled property, defendant no. 1 claimed to 
have acquired right by way of prescription and defendant 
no. 2 also denied title of the plaintiff and claimed to be in 
E 
possession pursuant to conveyance thereof by 
defendant no. 1. The trial court decreed the suit, holding 
that the alleged. prescription would not operate because 
defendant-1 was never in the possession of the property, 
much less in good faith. It was also observed that it was 
F 
proved from the proceedings by a fact otherwise 
admitted that the plaintiff had her residential house in the 
suit schedule property with a common wall with the 
house of the defendant and this was one more important 
fact to corroborate the case of the plaintiff, for being 
G 
relatives. descending from the same common trunk 
having ancestral house. The first appeal filed by the 
defendant was disposed of holding that the trial judge 
rightly pointed out that the specific claim made by the 
plaintiff with~ regard to the common ownership to the suit 
H 
1078 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2013] 11 S.C.R. 
A schedule property and the houses was not specifically 
denied by the defendants. The defendants filed a second 
appeal and the single Judge of the High Court framed the 
substantial questions of law: namely (i) The plaintiffs not 
having produced any document of title, could the courts 
B below decree the suit? (ii) The decision was contrary to 
the pleadings and the courts below committed breach of 
procedure in holding that there was admission of original 
plaintiff, in the pleading when there was no such 
admission; and (iii) the courts below failed to consider 
c that the defendants had pleaded prescription and that 
Article 526(2) 

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