9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of the sale of lands by Rukhma Bai to Mukund Deo. 2. Claim of the respondents as reversioners to the estate of Beli Ram. 3. Jurisdiction of the High Court in deciding the second appeal. 4. Finding of the High Court regarding the death of Vitha Bai before Rukhma Bai. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appeal involved a dispute over the validity of the sale of lands by Rukhma Bai to Mukund Deo. The respondents, claiming as reversioners to the estate of Beli Ram, challenged the sale, alleging it was not supported by legal necessity. The Trial Court initially ruled in favor of the respondents, holding that the sale was not for legal necessity and that the respondents were entitled to possession of the lands. However, the First Appellate Court reversed this decision, stating that the sale was supported by legal necessity and that the respondents, as heirs to Vitha Bai, who had attempted to impeach the alienation but later compromised with Mukund Deo, had no valid claim to the lands. 2. The High Court, in a second appeal, reversed the First Appellate Court's decision, reinstating the Trial Court's decree. The High Court found that Mukund Deo failed to establish legal necessity for the sale and that Vitha Bai's conduct in compromising and withdrawing her suit did not confer a valid title on Mukund Deo. The High Court also preferred the testimony of witnesses for the respondents, indicating that Vitha Bai had predeceased Rukhma Bai. The legal representatives of Mukund Deo appealed to the Supreme Court with special leave. 3. The Supreme Court addressed the jurisdiction of the High Court in deciding the second appeal. It clarified that the suit was governed by the Hyderabad Civil Procedure Code, under which a second appeal to the High Court could be made on questions of fact as well as law. The appellants argued that the High Court could not set aside the First Appellate Court's findings of fact, citing the Code of Civil Procedure, but the Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing that the High Court's power was derived from the Hyderabad Code and not restricted by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 4. The final issue involved the finding of the High Court regarding the death of Vitha Bai before Rukhma Bai. The Trial Court had analyzed the evidence in detail, including revenue records, to conclude that Vitha Bai likely predeceased Rukhma Bai. The Appellate Judge did not delve into the evidence but accepted the plaintiffs' witnesses' statements as reliable. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's preference for the Trial Court's finding on this factual issue was within its jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court, under Article 136 of the Constitution, would not typically overturn such findings on questions of fact. In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision and affirming the respondents' entitlement to possession of the lands based on the lack of legal necessity for the sale and the finding that Vitha Bai predeceased Rukhma Bai.
|
