1996 (3) TMI 572 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of competing sale deeds (Ex.A-1 and Ex.B-2).
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. Findings of fact by the trial court and first appellate court.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Competing Sale Deeds (Ex.A-1 and Ex.B-2):
The Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit property, claiming that the property was sold to him by the second Defendant via sale deed Ex.A-1 dated 5.6.1967. The first Defendant contended that he had purchased the property earlier from the second Defendant via sale deed Ex.B-2 dated 5.5.1967. The trial court and the first appellate court found that Ex.B-2 was genuine and executed earlier, thereby invalidating Ex.A-1. The courts noted that the first Defendant had redeemed the mortgage (Ex.B-1) on 10.5.1967 and took possession of the property. The High Court, however, re-appreciated the evidence and found Ex.A-1 to be earlier and genuine, thus granting the Plaintiff the declaration of title and possession.

2. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The Supreme Court emphasized the limited scope of Section 100, which allows a second appeal only on substantial questions of law, not on re-appreciation of facts. The High Court had erred by re-evaluating the evidence and substituting its own findings for those of the trial and first appellate courts. The Supreme Court cited precedents, including Durga Chowdhrani v. Jawahar Singh and Madamanchi Ramappa v. Muthalur Bojjappa, to assert that the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a substantial error or defect in procedure.

3. Findings of Fact by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court:
Both the trial court and the first appellate court had found that the sale deed Ex.B-2 dated 5.5.1967 was genuine and executed earlier than Ex.A-1 dated 5.6.1967. They concluded that the second Defendant had no subsisting title to convey to the Plaintiff on 5.6.1967. The High Court's conclusion that Ex.B-2 was not executed on 5.5.1967 due to the delay in registration was deemed unjustified by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by re-assessing the evidence and ignoring the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the judgments and decrees of the trial court and the first appellate court, which had dismissed the Plaintiff's suit. The appeal was allowed with costs, and the first Defendant's title to the suit property was upheld based on the earlier and genuine sale deed Ex.B-2 dated 5.5.1967.