THIAGARAJAN AND ORS. v. SRI VENUGOPALASWAMY B. KOIL AND ORS

Citation: [2004] 2 S.C.R. 1229

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: R.C. LAHOTI, AR. LAKSHMANAN

Case summary

THIAGARAJAN AND ORS. v. SRI VENUGOPALASWAMY B. KOIL AND ORS.pdf

Judgment text

THIAGARAJAN AND ORS. v. SRI VENUGOPALASWAMY B. KOIL AND ORS. MARCH 16, 2004 [R. C. LAHOTI AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ. ] -...... ___ Code of Civil Procedure, I908-Section I00-Single Judge framing substantial question oflaw at the time ofadmission ofsecond appeal-Another Single Judge framing another set ofsubstantial questions oflaw at the time - of rendering of the judgment without recording reasons-Correctness of- Held, not correct-Jurisdiction bfthe High Court is confined to entertain the substantial question oflaw. specifically raised in the memorandum ofappeal and formulated by the High Court at the time ofadmission. Findings recorded by Appellate court after going into the entire evidence-High Court re-appreciating the evidence in second appeal- Correctness of-Held, not correct-High Court exceeded itsjurisdiction under section I00 CPC-High Court cannot substitute its own findings when two views are possible.

The first and second appellants instituted a suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction in respect of A Schedule properties and for possession of B schedule properties. The appellants contended that the -suit properties were ancestral properties and they were entitled to them by virtue of survivorship and inheritance on the death of the second appellant's husband. The defendants contended that the grand father of the first appellant had only two wives and not three wives as contended by the first appellant; that the first appellant's grandmother was not the -third wife but a concubine and hence the father of the first appellant was not a legitimate son and therefore had no right, title or interest on the suit pr plea and rendered its decision without following the mandatory provisions of Section l00 CPC.

On this short ground, we are of the view that the judgment and decree of the High Court dated 30-11- 1982 are illegal and in excess of its jurisdiction and so unsustainable ·• and deserve to be set aside. We hereby do so. The appeal is allowed with costs, including advocates' fee which we estimate at Rs. 10,000. " The existence of a substantial question of law is thus the sine qua non for the exercise of the jurisdiction under the amended provisions of Section JOO CPC. The above judgment squarely applies to the facts and circumstance~ of the instant case. Thus, we answer the legal contention Nos. I to 3 in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs and against the respondents/defendants. Contention No. 4: - It was submitted by Mr.

Prabhakar, learned counsel for the appellants that the High Court hearing a second appeal under Section I00 CPC should not make a roving enquiry into the facts by examining the portion ofevidence afresh to upset the well considered findings of fact rendered by the first appellate court. Our attention was drawn to the various passages from the judgment of the High Court and in comparison with the judgment rendered by the first appellate Court. On a reading of both the judgments, we are unable to convince ourselves that the High Court has looked into only portions of evidence and not the entire evidence while seeking to disturb the factual findings rendered by the first appellate Court. The learned Subordinate Judge, who heard the appeal, held that in view of the decision in C. R. O. P. No. 20 of 1962 there was no doubt that Kannan, the father of the first appellant was the legitimate son of Munian and that no document had been produced to establ!

sh that the suit property was the self~acquisition ofMunian and that the settlement deed executed by Yengachari Muniammal referred to the property as being ancestral and that the family arrangement pleaded by virtue of which the suit properties was said to be allotted to Yengachari Muniammal had also not been proved. In this context, the High Court has brushed aside the decisions rendered by a competent Court when such decision is marked as an Exhibit Al and the decision which had become final and is binding on the parties and which contained certain findings which are relevant to decides the instant case. We . can also refer to certain other instances where the High Court has committed an error and re-appreciated the evidence. The learned Judge of the High Court erred in holding that the plaint does not state that Kannan, the father ofthe appellant Nos.

1,3 and 4 and husband ofsecond appellant is a legitimate son of Munian and his wife Muruvi evidently overlooking the dispute as to the status of Kannan was raised in the written statement filed by the respondents and not prior to the same. The High Court also has failed to note that in view of the defence taken by the respondents regarding the existence of more than one· wife for Munian the ancestor of the appellants were compelled to give details of the wives. of Munain during the course of the evidence and raised the same at the stage . of arguments. Likewise, the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction vested in it holding that the evirience of P. W. I is discrepant and far from being satisfactory and not entitled to acceptance especially when the first appellate Court which is the final court of fact had appreciated the evidence and rendered its decision. Again the High Court has exceeded that the jurisdiction vested by holding that the evidence of P. W.

2 is not entitled to any credibility especially when the said evidence has been accepted by the final Court of fact. The High Court has committed an error in seeking to si~ in judgment over the decision rendered in the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act marked as Exhibit - Al especially when the same had become final inter parties and under the subject matter of the second appeal. The learned Judge has erred in interpreting and poi! Jting out the alleged floss in the decision rendered in the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act without making any reference to the ultimate conclusion which had become final as between parties. Likewise, the Court has committed an error in holding that the appellants are not entitled to any relief claimed in the suit and to the suit A Schedule property in the absence of evidence evidently not adverting to th~ entire evidence adduced by the appellants.

The Court has evidently overlooked that it has been pleaded that the suit properties had been in possession and enjoyment of the appellant's ancestors thus tracing title to the suit property. The learned Judge is also not correct in holding that the suit properties belong to Yengachari Muniammal merely on the basis of some evidence as to her possession especially when her title had not been established or traced by the respondents as required under law. The learned Judge, in our opinion, has misconstrued that the appellants are seeking relief on the basis of discrepancies in the case pleaded by the respondents evidently overlooking that the appellants had pleaded and proved their case and the same had been accepted by the final court of fact.

In our opin'ion, the High Court has erred in holding that the appellants have failed to establish their title to the suit property evidently without appreciating the evidence on record in its proper perspective by making only -reference to portions of evidence having once decided to reappreciate the evidence. The High Court, in our opinion, ought to have examined the entire evidence both oral and documentary instead ofonly a portion thereofespecially while deciding to look into and reappreciate the evidence despite the limited scope under Section 100 CPC. In our view, the learned single Judge of the High Court has exceeded his jurisdiction in reassessing, reappreciating and making a roving enquiry by entering into the factual arena of the case which is not the one contemplated under the limited scope of jurisdiction of a second appeal under Section l00 CPC.

In the present case, the lower appellate Court fairly appreciated the evidence and arrived at a conclusion that the appellants suit was to be decreed and that the appellants are entitled to the relief as prayed for. Ev. en assuming that another view is possible on a reappreciation of the same evidence, that should not have been done by the High Court as it cannot be said that the view taken by the first appellate court was ba'ied on no material. To say the least the approach of the High Court was not proper. It is the obligation of the Courts of law to further the clear intentment of the legislature and not frustrate it by excluding Qie same. This Court in a catena of decisions held that where findings of fact by the lower appellate Court are based on evidence, the High Court in second appeal cannot substitute its own findings on reappreciation of evidence merely on the ground that another view was possible.

We, therefore, hold that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the findings of the final court of fact. - We, therefore, hold that the judgment of the High Court under the circumstances cannot be sustained and judgment ofthe lower appellate Court in A. S. No. 21 of 1983 of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur is restored. The appeal stands allowed. There will be no order as to costs. B. S. Appeal allowed. -