1999 (4) TMI 627 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Declaration of title of the suit property.
2. Permanent injunction against the defendants.
3. Admissibility and probative value of entries in the electoral rolls.
4. Burden of proof regarding the plaintiff's lineage.
5. Interference by the High Court with the findings of fact by the lower appellate court.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Declaration of Title of the Suit Property:
The plaintiff filed a suit for the declaration of title of the suit property, claiming to be the son of Late Haritheertham and Mariyayee. The trial court concluded that the plaintiff had not established his lineage and dismissed the suit. However, the lower appellate court reversed this finding, accepting the plaintiff's evidence, including the voter's list, and declared the plaintiff as the son of Haritheertham and Mariyayee, thus entitled to the property. The High Court, in the second appeal, reversed the lower appellate court's decision, reinstating the trial court's judgment.

2. Permanent Injunction Against the Defendants:
The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from interfering with his possession of the suit property. The trial court found that the plaintiff was not in possession and thus not entitled to an injunction. The lower appellate court, however, found that the plaintiff was in possession at the time of the suit and granted the injunction. The High Court overturned this decision, aligning with the trial court's findings.

3. Admissibility and Probative Value of Entries in the Electoral Rolls:
The High Court initially framed a point for consideration regarding whether entries in the electoral rolls could be regarded as conclusive evidence for establishing genealogy. The High Court concluded that the voter's list was not admissible as conclusive evidence. Despite this, the lower appellate court had relied on the voter's list along with other evidence to support the plaintiff's claim.

4. Burden of Proof Regarding the Plaintiff's Lineage:
The High Court criticized the lower appellate court for improperly placing the burden of proof on the first defendant to disprove the plaintiff's lineage. The High Court emphasized that the burden of proof should have been on the plaintiff to establish his claim. However, it was noted that both sides had adduced evidence, making the burden of proof less relevant in this context.

5. Interference by the High Court with the Findings of Fact by the Lower Appellate Court:
The Supreme Court addressed whether the High Court was right in interfering with the findings of fact by the lower appellate court. It was argued that the High Court should not have interfered unless the lower appellate court had failed to consider the reasons given by the trial court. The Supreme Court cited precedents, including a three-judge bench decision in V. Ramachandra Ayyar's case, which held that a second appellate court cannot interfere with the first appellate court's findings merely because the first appellate court did not address the trial court's reasoning in detail. The Supreme Court preferred this view over a contrary two-judge bench decision in S.V.R. Mudaliar's case.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had erred in interfering with the lower appellate court's findings of fact. It restored the judgment of the lower appellate court, which had declared the plaintiff's title to the property and granted a permanent injunction. The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the High Court was set aside, with no order as to costs.