9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (4) TMI 627X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rst defendant and her mother were residing in the suit village and the second defendant was the husband of the first defendant. The 1st defendant was not the daughter of late Haritheertham and Mariyayee. The mother of the first defendant died 4 or 5 years before the suit and thereafter the first defendant got patta changed into her name and denied the right and interest of plaintiff. The plaintiff stated that the defendants were seeking to interfere with plaintiff s possession and he therefore claimed declaration of title and permanent injunction. The defendants denied Mariyayee's title. They contended that the plaintiff was an imposter and that he was not the son of late Haritheertham and late Mariyayee. They also claimed to be in possession. The plaintiff produced oral arid documentary evidence in support of his case. Four witnesses PW-1 to PW-4 were examined in support of plaintiff s case and plaintiff filed sixteen documents. The defendants adduced evidence of 7 witnesses and filed seven documents in support of their case. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence placed by the respective parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was of the view that the appellate court had placed the burden of proof on the first defendant rather than on the plaintiff. The learned Judge discussed the evidence as if he was dealing with a first appeal and reversed the findings of fact and restored the judgment of the trial court. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended before us that the High Court ought not to have interfered with the findings on questions of fact. The appellate court could not have considered the oral and documentary evidence on merits. Learned counsel also pointed out that the first defendent put forward a specific case that the plaintiff was an imposter and therefore the lower appellate court had rightly cast the burden of proof on the 1st defendant. The appellate court rightly came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was in possession of the property. Even assuming that the voter's list was not admissible, the other evidence oral and documentary which was adduced on behalf of the plaintiff was sufficient and was accepted by the lower appellate court. Therefore the judgment of the first appellate court should be restored. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-defendant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llate court had not considered all the reasons given by the trial court and therefore it was not permissible for the said court to reverse the findings of the trial court and in such a context, it would be permissible for the High Court to set aside the judgment of the appellate court. Counsel pointed out that in the aforesaid judgment, this Court had relied upon the judgment by Privy Council in Rani Hemanta Kutnari Debi v. Maharaja Jagadindra Nath Roy Bahadur., 16 MLJ 272 (PC) where such a preposition was laid down. The point for consideration is whether the High Court was right in interfering with the findings of fact arrived at by the lower appellate court on the ground that the appellate court has not adverted to the Various reasons given by the trail court? A similar question arose before a bench of three judges of this Court in V. Ramachandra Ayyar and Anr. v. Ramalingam Chettir and Anr., AIR (1963) SC 302. A similar contention was raised by the learned counsel for the respondents in that case, by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in Mangamma v. Paidayya, AIR (1941) MAD 393. This court held that the second appellate court could not reverse the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had reversed the decision of the first Court; and in considering the propriety or correctness of the said reversing judgment, the Privy Council observed that the appellate judgment did not come into close quarters with the judgment which it reversed. It would thus be seen that What the privy Council has said about the requirements of proper appellate judgment cannot assist Mr, Chatterjee in contending that if a proper judgment is hot written by the lower appellate court in dealing with questions of fact, its conclusions of fact can be challenged under Section 100. That question must be considered in the light of S.100 alone. From the aforesaid judgment of the three judges bench in Ramachandra Ayyar's case, it is clear that this Court held that second appellate court cannot interfere with the judgment of the first appellate court on the ground that the first appellate court had not come to close grips with the reasoning of the trial court. It is open to the first appellate court to consider the evidence adduced by the parties and give its own reasons for accepting the evidence on one side or rejecting the evidence on other side. It is not permissible for the second appellate cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
