LexSHYAM LAL (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS versus KESHO LAL (DEAD) AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SHYAM LAL (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.
A
·,
;;·'I
v.
KESHO LAL (DEAD) AND ANR.
APRIL 26, 1995
(K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]
B
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 136.
·,/
Appeal-Finding of Fact recorded by High Court-Finding based on
appreciation of evidence by Courts below-Held no interference was called c
for.
)
In a suit filed by Respondent I for declaration of ownership as well
as possession of a house the High Court ultimately stated that the direc-
tion given by the Trial Court with regard to partition of the house should
D
be struck off from the decree as no party to the suit had applied for
partition and that if any party was anxious for division he may fill a
separate suit for that purpose. Thereafter, Respondent I filed a suit for
partition which was decreed by the trial court. The appellate court allowed
the damages but dismissed the suit regarding recovery of possession and
removal of material. The High Court granted decree in favour of the E
plaintiff-respondents and recorded a finding that col!struction at certain
places in the house were made subsequent to the judgment rendered by
the High Court in earlier proceedings. The defendant-appellants preferred
appeal before this Court.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court
F
HELD : The finding recorded by the High Court that construction
· at certain places are subsequent to the earlier judgment of High Court is
a finding o(fact based on appreciation of evidence by all the courts. Thus,
it is not a fit case for interference. (835-A]
G
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1190 of
+
1977.
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.4.75 of the Allahabad High
Court in SA. No. 977 of 1972.
H
833
834
SUPREMECOURT REPORTS
(1995] 3 S.C.R.
A
V.J. Francies for the Appellants.
(";.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
This appeal arises by Special Leave·from the Judgment of the High
Court of Allahabad is Second Appeal No. 977/72 dated April 2, 1975.
B Kesho Lal, respondent no. 1, is represented by legal representatives of the
appellants. He was allotted in 1948 a site by the Allahabad Improvement
Trust in plot No. 184 of G. Toula. Thereon, a building was constructed.
Kesho Lal filed Suit No. 69/58 for declaration that he was a sole owner of
the said house and for possession from the respondents brother, Shyam Lal
c and his mother. Ultimately, in those proceedings the High Court by judg-
ment and decree dated May 11, 1966 held thus:
"The direction given by the trial court is open to several objections.
That direction is in the nature of partition of the house. Neither
the plaintiff nor the defendants applied to the court for partition
D
of the house. The line X Y appears to have been drawn on the
map arbitrarily. The specific shares of the parties were not dis·
cussed. It is not stated in the judgment that division of the house
is in proportion to the shares of the parties in the joint property.
It has been found that the house was built from joint family fund.
E
Parties have been in occupation of different portions of the house.
They should have been left in possession of those portion. If any
party is left in possession of those portion. If any party is anxious
for a division of the house, that party must file a separate suit for
partition. For the present, the parties should be left to have joint
possession of the house belonging to the family. The direction in
F
question should be struck off from the decree. The appeal partly
succeeds, while the cross objection fails."
Thereafter, Kesha Lal filed the suit for partition in the First Addi-
tional Munsiff Court at Allahabad. The trial court decreed the suit and on
G
appeal in CA No. 409no, the appellate court allowed the damages for a
sum of Rs. 600 but dismissed the suit regarding recovery of possession and
removal of the material. The High Court in the impugned judgment held
that the construction at A,B,C,D and E,F,G,H were made subsequent to
_\.
the judgment rendered by the High Court in earlier proceedings. Accord·
ingly, granted the decree in favour of the plaintiff-respondents. Thus, this
H appeal by Special Leave.
SHYAMLALv. KESHOLAL
835
Shri Francis, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the A
finding recorded by the High Court that the construction at A, B, C, D
and E, F, G, H places are subsequent to the judgment is not correct. It
being a finding of fact based on appreciation evidence by all theExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.