2023 (3) TMI 1414 - SC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of suit - illegal dispossession - Decree of perpetual injunction against the defendants 1 to 3 directing the defendants to restore the possession of the schedule premises to the plaintiff - non-interference in the plaintiffs lawful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property in any manner whatsoever. Suit is bad for mis-joinder or nonjoinder of necessary parties? - Court fee paid on the plaint is insufficient? - Entitlement for possession of the suit schedule premises. HELD THAT - There are no hesitation to hold that the original defendants failed to raise sufficient and appropriate pleadings in the written statement that they have better right for possession of the suit properties. No amount of proof offered without appropriate pleadings would have any relevance. The Courts below have rightly relied on the evidence of PW-5 to hold forceful dispossession of the defendants from B schedule property. Nothing is on record to uphold the said finding. Whether the impugned judgment is inflicted with perversity or any patent illegality warranting interference in invocation of the power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The sound reasons given by the courts below persuade us to answer it in the negative. After carefully considering the evidence on record the Trial Court arrived at the conclusion that the respondent herein/the plaintiff is entitled to get back the possession of suit schedule property from which he was dispossessed and even after careful consideration of the additional evidence recorded and transmitted to the High Court by the trial court and considering all contentions and aspects with reference to plethora of decisions the High Court only confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court. As observed earlier when the concurrent findings of the courts below are the outcome of the rightful consideration and appreciation of materials on record they do not call for any interference. Taking into account the fact that the suit was indisputably filed based on prior permission and illegal dispossession we do not find any reason to place Exhibit D-2 sale deed executed (even if by the owners) in favour of the deceased second appellant to displace the concurrent findings of the courts below on the entitlement of the respondent herein/the plaintiff for a decree as granted by the trial court and confirmed the High Court. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Mis-joinder or non-joinder of necessary parties.
2. Insufficiency of court fee paid on the plaint.
3. Entitlement of the plaintiff to possession of the suit schedule premises.
4. Applications for amendment of written statement and additional grounds.
5. Maintainability of the suit.
6. Abatement of the suit due to non-substitution of legal representatives.

Summary:

Issue 1: Mis-joinder or Non-joinder of Necessary Parties
The High Court held that the suit was not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The appellants contended that Sriman Madhwa Sangha and Sri Vittal Rao should have been impleaded. However, it was noted that these parties had filed a petition for eviction against the respondent, acknowledging the respondent's possession. The court concluded that the appellants were not justified in contending non-joinder of these parties.

Issue 2: Insufficiency of Court Fee Paid on the Plaint
The court did not find any merit in the contention regarding the insufficiency of the court fee paid on the plaint. This issue was not elaborated upon in the judgment, implying that it was not a significant point of contention.

Issue 3: Entitlement of the Plaintiff to Possession of the Suit Schedule Premises
The Trial Court decreed that the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of the 'B' schedule property from the defendants. This decision was based on the plaintiff's prior possession and illegal dispossession by the defendants. The High Court confirmed this judgment, noting that the defendants failed to establish a better claim for possession.

Issue 4: Applications for Amendment of Written Statement and Additional Grounds
The High Court dismissed the applications for amendment of the written statement and for raising additional grounds. The defendants had ample opportunities to file an additional written statement but failed to do so. Allowing the amendment at the appellate stage would have necessitated framing fresh issues and a de novo trial, which the court found unjustifiable.

Issue 5: Maintainability of the Suit
The High Court upheld the maintainability of the suit, rejecting the appellants' contention that it was filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The court noted that the suit was based on prior possession and illegal dispossession, not ownership, and thus was maintainable. The principle of "jus tertii" was applied, meaning the defendants could not claim a third party had a better right to possession.

Issue 6: Abatement of the Suit Due to Non-substitution of Legal Representatives
The High Court rejected the contention that the suit should abate due to non-substitution of all legal representatives of the deceased third defendant. The court noted that the surviving defendants (sons of the deceased) fully represented the joint interest and diligently prosecuted the suit. The principle that the estate of the deceased was sufficiently represented was applied.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The suit was based on prior possession and illegal dispossession, and the defendants failed to establish a better claim for possession. The applications for amendment and additional grounds were rightly dismissed, and the suit was maintainable despite the non-joinder of certain parties. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court were confirmed, and the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.