SUNKARA LAKSHMINARASAMMA (D) BY LRS. versus SAGI SUBBA RAJU & OTHERS ETC.

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 222 · Decided: 28-11-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
222                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
SUNKARA LAKSHMINARASAMMA (D) BY LRs.
v.
SAGI SUBBA RAJU & OTHERS ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4380-4382 of 2016)
NOVEMBER 28, 2018
[N. V. RAMANA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Appeal – Maintainability of – When defendants were either
deleted from array of parties or dead and whose legal
representatives had not been brought on record – Appellants-
plaintiffs filed two suits for partition of properties (Schedule A and
B), out which one was also for eviction of defendants Nos. 26 to
125 & 127 – Will pertaining to Schedule A property was executed
in favour of  ‘V’ by one ‘SP’ (brother of V’s grandfather) – Another
Will pertaining to Schedule B property was executed in favour of
‘V’ by his father (Plaintiff  ‘L’) – Defendant Nos. 5 to 125 & 127
who had purchased the Schedule B property from ‘V’, relied upon
Will/bequest executed for benefit of ‘V’ – Suits for partition of
properties were dismissed by the trial Court and confirmed by the
first appellate Court and the High Court – One of the respondents,
namely ‘S’ filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of
sale of  Schedule A property – The suit for specific performance
was ultimately decreed against the appellants – Appellants contended
that ‘V’ didn’t have any right, title or interest over the suit properties
to the full extent and the Courts below were not justified in
concluding that the bequests (Wills) relied upon by the defendants
in respect of the properties in question were proved – Respondents
contended that appeals were not maintainable since a number of
defendants against whom the relief was sought/claimed were either
deleted from the array of parties, or were dead – On appeal, held:
All three Courts concurrently on facts have concluded that Wills for
benefit of ‘V’ were proved and also, the reasons assigned and
conclusions arrived at in respect of proof of both the Wills were just
and proper – Since ‘V’ was the sole owner of the properties by
virtue of Wills, he had right to alienate the properties – Defendants
Nos. 5 to 125 and 127 has purchased the properties for valuable
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 222
222
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
223
consideration from ‘V’ – Courts below were justified in concluding
that sales made in favour of defendants Nos. 5 to 125 and 127 were
just and proper – Thus, there were no reasons to interfere with the
findings of the Courts below – Furthermore, ‘V’ the vendor of the
properties, had entered the witness box before the trial Court and
supported all his alienations in favour of the defendants – Therefore,
the Division Bench of High Court rightly decided against the
appellants and granted the decree for specific performance – Insofar
as maintainability of these appeals are concerned, decree passed
in favour of defendants who were either deleted or dead and whose
legal representatives had not been brought on record had attained
finality – In case these appeals are allowed in respect of other
defendants, the decree to be passed in these appeals would conflict
with decree already passed in favour of other defendants – Court
cannot be called upon to make two inconsistent decrees about same
subject matter – Thus, appeals not maintainable – Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 – Or. XXII, r.4.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Exhibit B4, the Will pertains to Schedule A
property. The said Will was executed by ‘SP’, who was admittedly
the owner of the Schedule A properties.  He had no issue.  His
wife also expired shortly after his death. The beneficiary under
the said Will was ‘V’.  Exhibit B106, the Will pertains to Schedule
B property. The said Will was executed by ‘L’ (the father of ‘V’)
in favour of his son ‘V’. ‘V’ became the owner of Schedule A and
B properties, after the demise of ‘SP’ and ‘L’. All the three Courts
concurrently on facts have concluded that both the Wills are
proved. The findings of the validity of the Wills etc. have not
been seriously disputed by the appellants.  Even otherwise, on
going through the judgments of the three Courts, the reasons
assigned and the conclusions arrived at in respect of proof of
both the Wills are just and proper.  Hence, no interference is
called for. [Para 5][228-D, G-H]
2. Since ‘V’ was the sole owner of the properties by virtue
of Exhibits B4 and B106 Wills, naturally he had the right to
alienate the properties.  Defendant Nos. 5 to 125 and 127 had
purchased the properties for valuable cons

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