2000 (9) TMI 1075 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the predecessors in title of the 1st Respondent were heirs of Smt. Lakshamania.
2. Whether the suit was barred by limitation.
3. Whether the High Court erred in re-appreciating evidence in a Second Appeal.
4. Validity of the sale deeds executed by Ram Charan Sonar and Swaroop Sonar.

Summary:

1. Heirship of Smt. Lakshamania:
The Trial Court and the first Appellate Court both found that the 1st Respondent's predecessors were not heirs of Smt. Lakshamania. The courts noted that the predecessors did not testify to prove their relationship, and documents presented were insufficient. The High Court, however, re-appreciated the evidence, relying on documents Exs. 20, 21, and 22, and disbelieved the testimony of Smt. Mantorani without cogent reasons. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in re-appreciating evidence and that the lower courts correctly concluded that the predecessors were not heirs.

2. Limitation:
The Trial Court and the first Appellate Court held that the suit was barred by limitation. The High Court reversed this finding, but the Supreme Court reinstated it, noting that the suit was governed by the Limitation Act of 1948, specifically Articles 134 and 148. The Supreme Court emphasized that the 1st Respondent and her predecessors had knowledge of the transactions and failed to file the suit within the prescribed period. The Supreme Court found that the High Court's reasoning on limitation was erroneous and that the suit was indeed time-barred.

3. Re-appreciation of Evidence by High Court:
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for re-appreciating evidence in a Second Appeal, which is permissible only on questions of law u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court's justification for re-appreciating evidence was found to be patently wrong as both lower courts had considered the documents in question.

4. Validity of Sale Deeds:
The Supreme Court noted that the sale deeds executed by Ram Charan Sonar and Swaroop Sonar created interests in excess of their rights as mortgagees. The High Court's finding that these transactions were not bona fide was incorrect. The Supreme Court held that the transactions were valid and that the suit should have been dismissed on this ground as well.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the suit. The cross objections filed by the 1st Respondent were not considered necessary to address. The Supreme Court emphasized that the suit was barred by limitation and that the 1st Respondent's predecessors were not proven to be heirs of Smt. Lakshamania.