2019 (5) TMI 1991 - SC - Indian Laws

Title to the suit schedule property - lawful possession of the suit schedule property on the date of suit - Does the plaintiff prove the interference by the defendants to his possession of the suit property? - HELD THAT - The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court gave cogent reasons on appreciation of evidence on record more particularly the Sale Deed dated 22.06.1964 (Exhibit P1) document dated 23.04.1971 (Exhibit D4) and subsequent Sale Deed dated 18.05.1973 (Exhibit P2) and thereafter held that the plaintiff is not entitled to the declaration that he has become the owner. While interfering with the Judgment and Decree passed by both the Courts below it appears that the High Court has again reappreciated the entire evidence on record which in exercise of powers under Section 100 of the CPC is not permissible. Under the circumstances the High Court has committed a grave/manifest error in quashing and setting aside the findings recorded by both the Courts below which were on appreciation of evidence on record. The High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction while exercising the powers under Section 100 of the CPC. From the entire evidence on record it appears that even the Sale Deed (Exhibit P1) was not acted upon. Between 1964 to 1971 even the name of Siddalingappa was not mutated/recorded in the revenue record. Both the Courts below considered in detail the aforesaid aspect which has been upset by the High Court. It is required to be noted that even in the cross-examination the original plaintiff was not sure about the sale consideration received from Siddalingappa as a remuneration in view of the registered Sale Deed dated 22.06.1964 (Exhibit P1). Even otherwise even according to the plaintiff and even considering the material on record as the suit land was a joint family property and/or was in the name of Nanjappa all the brothers had an equal share and therefore the same could not have been sold by Nanjappa plaintiff and other two brothers only and without consent of other brothers including Krishnappa unless the property was partitioned. It is required to be noted that the deed dated 23.04.1971 under which the suit property had gone /devolved in favour of the Krishnappa was reduced in writing before the Panchayat and Panchas and the same was signed by the village people/panchayat people and all the members of the family including even the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff disputed that the partition was not reduced in writing in the form of document Exhibit D4 on considering the entire evidence on record and even the deposition of plaintiff (cross-examination) he has specifically admitted that the oral partition had taken place in the year 1971 - The High Court has refused to look into the said document and/or consider document dated 23.04.1971 (Exhibit D4) solely on the ground that it requires registration and therefore as it is unregistered the same cannot be looked into. The High Court was not justified in interfering with the findings recorded by both the Courts below. For the reasons stated above the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained - Judgment and Order passed by both the Courts below dismissing the suit are hereby restored and consequently the suit filed by the original plaintiff is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 100 of the CPC.
2. Validity and effect of the Sale Deed dated 22.06.1964 (Exhibit P1).
3. Admissibility and effect of the Partition Deed dated 23.04.1971 (Exhibit D4).
4. Legitimacy of the Sale Deed dated 18.05.1973 (Exhibit P2).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 100 of the CPC:
The High Court's jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC is confined to substantial questions of law. The substantial question of law framed by the High Court was whether the appellant is the owner and in possession of the suit land as he purchased it in the year 1973, subsequent to the date 23.4.1971 when Ex.D1 – Partition deed – Palupatti is alleged to have come into existence. The Supreme Court held that this question cannot be considered a substantial question of law, emphasizing that the High Court cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the First Appellate Court unless the conclusions drawn by the lower Court were erroneous, contrary to mandatory provisions of law, or based on inadmissible evidence.

2. Validity and effect of the Sale Deed dated 22.06.1964 (Exhibit P1):
The original plaintiff claimed ownership of the suit property based on the Sale Deed dated 22.06.1964 (Exhibit P1). The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court found that this Sale Deed was nominal and not intended to be acted upon. The Supreme Court noted that Krishnappa was not a signatory to Exhibit P1, and thus, it did not bind him. The Court also observed that the sale consideration mentioned in Exhibit P1 was highly inadequate, and the sale was not acted upon, as evidenced by the lack of mutation in the revenue records between 1964 and 1971. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in giving much emphasis on Exhibit P1 being a registered Sale Deed without considering the surrounding circumstances and the intention of the parties.

3. Admissibility and effect of the Partition Deed dated 23.04.1971 (Exhibit D4):
The High Court held that Exhibit D4 was inadmissible in evidence as it was an unregistered document. However, the Supreme Court found that Exhibit D4 could be considered a family arrangement or a list of properties partitioned (Palupatti) and thus did not require registration. The Court emphasized that such a family settlement, even if unregistered, would operate as a complete estoppel against the parties to the settlement. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed a grave error by not considering Exhibit D4, which was corroborative evidence explaining the arrangement made thereunder and the conduct of the parties.

4. Legitimacy of the Sale Deed dated 18.05.1973 (Exhibit P2):
The original plaintiff also relied on the Sale Deed dated 18.05.1973 (Exhibit P2) to claim ownership. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court found this Sale Deed to be sham and not acted upon. The Supreme Court noted inconsistencies in the sale consideration mentioned in Exhibit P2 and the actual amount paid, as testified by the witnesses. The Court held that the High Court erred in setting aside the findings of the lower Courts regarding Exhibit P2.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the High Court, restoring the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, thereby dismissing the suit filed by the original plaintiff. The Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC and committed manifest errors in its findings on the Sale Deeds and the Partition Deed.