//
you're reading...
legal issues

The plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of possession of the property described in Schedule ‘A’ appended to the plaint. They further prayed for grant of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them, their men and agents from in any manner interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the property described in Schedule A and B appended to the plaint and from constructing a new building thereon. In short, the plaintiffs’ case was that the suit property belonged to one Sheik Maracair of Pudupattinam village, who died issueless and his property devolved upon his sister Kathija Bivi, who executed a settlement deed in favour of her son Sultan Maracair. Sultan Maracair transferred the property to the plaintiffs by oral hiba on 5th May, 1968. The validity of oral hiba became the subject matter of consideration in OS No.49/1968 filed in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Mayuram, who recorded a finding that hiba was valid. The said finding was upheld by the lower appellate Court.

The supreme court of india. Taken about 170 m ...

Image via Wikipedia

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2407 OF 2002
Azrath Bivi and Anr. ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Chinnathambi (Dead) Thru. LRs. ...Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of
possession of the property described in Schedule ‘A’
appended to the plaint. They further prayed for grant of
permanent injunction against the defendants restraining
them, their men and agents from in any manner interfering
with their possession and enjoyment of the property
described in Schedule A and B appended to the plaint and
from constructing a new building thereon. In short, the
plaintiffs' case was that the suit property belonged to
one Sheik Maracair of Pudupattinam village, who died
issueless and his property devolved upon his sister
Kathija Bivi, who executed a settlement deed in favour of
her son Sultan Maracair. Sultan Maracair transferred the
property to the plaintiffs by oral hiba on 5th May, 1968.
The validity of oral hiba became the subject matter of
consideration in OS No.49/1968 filed in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Mayuram, who recorded a finding that hiba
was valid. The said finding was upheld by the lower
appellate Court. 
....2/-- 2 -
During his life time, Sheikh Maracair constructed a
shed in the suit property and let out the same to
defendant No.1 on a monthly rent of Rs.20/- for a tea
shop, who, in turn, entered into some arrangement with
defendant No.2 for maintaining the tea shop. Defendant
No.1 continued to occupy the tea shop even after execution
of settlement deed by Kathija Bivi in favour of her son,
Sultan Maracair, and transfer of the property by the
latter in favour of the plaintiffs by means of oral hiba.
Defendant No.1 defaulted in payment of rent for four
years, which necessitated filing of the suit by the
plaintiffs for possession and grant of permanent
injunction. Upon service of summons, defendant No.1 filed
written statement in which he denied that Sheikh Maracair
was the owner of the property and, after his death, his
sister Kathija Bivi inherited the same. He pleaded that
Khatija Bivi was neither the owner of the property nor she
was in possession thereof and the settlement deed executed
by her was invalid. Defendant No.1 also denied the
assertion contained in the plaint that Sheikh Maracair
gave him the property for running a tea shop. The
transfer of property by Sultan Maracair in favour of the
plaintiffs by oral hiba was also disputed. According to
defendant No.1, the suit property was a Government
property and he was occupying the same for the last thirty
years. He claimed title in the suit property by way of
adverse possession. The plaintiffs filed a reply to the
written submission in paragraph (4) whereof it was stated
that defendant No.1 renewed and executed a rent deed dated
5th January, 1970. Defendant No.1 filed two additional
written statements but did not deny this averment. On the
....3/-- 3 -
pleadings of the parties, one additional issue was framed
on 20th November, 1980, and seven additional issues were
framed on 6th December, 1986. Thereafter the parties
adduced their respective evidence. Upon consideration of
the entire matter, the Trial Court decreed the suit. The
appeal preferred by the defendant No.1 was dismissed by
the lower appellate Court which concurred with the
findings recorded by the trial Court on all the issues.
Defendant No.1 challenged the judgments and decrees
of the trial Court and lower appellate Court by filing
second appeal. The High Court framed four substantial
questions of law and upon reappraisal of evidence,
reversed the findings rendered by the Trial Court as well
as the lower appellate Court as if it was exercising
powers of the first appellate court. The High Court held
that the approach adopted by the Trial Court and the lower
appellate Court was erroneous. Hence, this appeal by
special leave.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submitted that the findings recorded by the
trial Court on various issues were based on comprehensive
evaluation and appreciation of the pleadings and evidence
of the parties and as those findings were confirmed by the
lower appellate Court, the High Court was not justified in
interfering with the same without having come to the
conclusion that the findings of the fact were perverse. 
Learned counsel for the respondent supported the
impugned judgment by arguing that the findings recorded by
the trial Court on the issues of ownership of the suit
property and landlord-tenant relationship between the
parties were ex facie erroneous. However, he could not
....4/-- 4 -
show that the findings recorded by the Trial Court and
upheld by the lower appellate Court were perverse in any
manner.
We have gone into the judgments rendered by the
Trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court and the
High Court. In our view, the findings recorded by the
Trial Court as well as the lower appellate court did not
suffer from any error what to say of same being perverse.
Therefore, the High Court was not justified in reversing
the concurrent judgments and decreed of the courts below.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned
judgment is set aside and the judgment and decree passed
by the Trial Court as confirmed by the lower appellate
Court is restored.
No costs.
......................J.
 [B.N. AGRAWAL]
......................J.
 [G.S. SINGHVI]
......................J.
 [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA]
New Delhi,
September 16, 2009.

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,891,647 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,906 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: