2007 (12) TMI 491 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the High Court's re-appreciation of evidence.
2. Adverse possession claim by the plaintiff.
3. Ownership and title of the suit property.
4. Admissibility of Exhibit A-8.
5. Identity and possession of the suit property.

Summary:

1. Validity of the High Court's re-appreciation of evidence:
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for entering "a prohibited arena of re-appreciation of evidence" and upsetting the well-considered judgment of the appellate court without discussing its approach. The High Court's re-appreciation of evidence was deemed inappropriate as it was based on non-existent substantial questions of law.

2. Adverse possession claim by the plaintiff:
The plaintiff, Muthuswami Gounder, claimed title and possession of the suit property through adverse possession. However, the appellate court rightly found that the plea of adverse possession was not proved. The High Court's findings on adverse possession were confused and unsupported by evidence. The Supreme Court emphasized that adverse possession must be open and adverse to the owner, which was not demonstrated in this case.

3. Ownership and title of the suit property:
The plaintiff's claim of ownership was based on a Sale Deed from Doraiswamy, who allegedly had adverse possession after Karupayee Ammal. The appellate court found that the plaintiff failed to prove Doraiswamy's valid title. The High Court erred in finding an entirely new case based on unpleaded facts and non-existent rights. The appellate court's reliance on tax receipts and revenue records in favor of the Iyer family was upheld by the Supreme Court.

4. Admissibility of Exhibit A-8:
The High Court found Exhibit A-8 inadmissible as the Tehsildar who issued the certificate was not examined. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the document was not proved and thus inadmissible.

5. Identity and possession of the suit property:
The High Court's discussion on the identity of the suit property was deemed unnecessary and uncalled for. The appellate court correctly identified the suit property as part of Item No.1 of Schedule C in Exhibit B-7. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court's findings on the identity and possession of the suit property.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the judgment of the First Appellate Court. The appeals succeeded with costs, and the suit filed by Muthuswami Gounder was dismissed, while the suit filed by Dharamrajan was partly decreed.