1999 (2) TMI 678 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the sale deed executed on 31st October 1975.
2. Possession of the suit land.
3. Nature of the sale deeds (whether nominal or genuine).
4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 100 CPC.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Sale Deed Executed on 31st October 1975:
The appellant contended that the sale deed dated 31st October 1975 was executed as a security for a loan of Rs. 500. The trial court concluded that the sale deed was indeed executed as security and declared it null and void. The appellate court, while agreeing that the sale deed was for security, modified the trial court's decision by stating the sale deed was voidable, not void, and required the defendant to re-convey the property upon repayment of Rs. 500. However, the High Court reversed these findings, leading to the appellant's challenge in the Supreme Court.

2. Possession of the Suit Land:
The trial court found that the appellant was in possession of the suit land (Survey No. 23/AA) and issued a permanent injunction against the respondent. The appellate court upheld this finding, confirming the appellant's possession. The High Court, however, did not properly address this finding, which was a significant oversight.

3. Nature of the Sale Deeds (Whether Nominal or Genuine):
The appellant argued that both sale deeds (for Survey Nos. 21/AA and 23/AA) were nominal and executed as security for loans. The trial court and the appellate court both found the sale deeds to be nominal and not genuine transactions. The High Court, however, re-evaluated the evidence and concluded otherwise, which was beyond its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC.

4. Jurisdiction of the High Court Under Section 100 CPC:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court, under Section 100 CPC, can only intervene based on substantial questions of law, which must be framed at the time of admitting the second appeal. The High Court failed to follow this procedure, rendering its judgment unsustainable. The Supreme Court cited precedents, including "Kshitish Chandra Purkait v. Santosh Kumar Purkait" and "Sheel Chand v. Prakash Chand," to support this view.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence and making factual determinations without framing substantial questions of law. The trial court and appellate court's findings that the sale deeds were nominal and the appellant was in possession were well-supported by evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the decisions of the trial court and the appellate court, which favored the appellant. The appeal was allowed, and no order as to costs was made.