jagannath

Suit: Suit for possession and mesne profits – One brother entrusting his share of property in land and house to another brother of looking after the property and also to give him the usufructs/income therefrom – On demand, the other brother refusing to give possession and mesne profits – Trial Court decreeing the suit for possession and mesne profits – Upheld by Appellate Court – High Court setting aside the concurrent findings of facts – On appeal, Held: The High Court has not examined the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record in proper perspective – The defendant is guilty of taking entirely dishonest defences before the trial Court – Court should always effectively discard such a dishonest conduct – The defendant did not have any case either in law or equity – Impugned judgment of High Court cannot be sustained – Hence set aside. `S’ and `J’ are two brothers who had inherited some agricultural land and an ancestral house from their father. They were jointly cultivating the land and occupied the ancestral house jointly. `S’ went to his maternal uncle’s house to look after his property, and requested his brother `J’ to look after his share of the property and to give him to usufruct or income from his share of the property. `S’ returned back from his uncle’s house and demanded the possession of his share in the property and the income derived therefrom, but `J’ did not pay any attention to his request. `S’ gave a notice to `J’ and since there was no response, he filed a civil suit claiming possession and mesne profits. The Civil Judge decreed the suit. The First Appellate Court upheld the judgment of the trial court and observed that the trial court was right in holding it was not proved that the defendants’s title over the suit land has been perfected by adverse possession and ouster of the plaintiff to his knowledge for more than 12 years. On second appeal, High Court set aside the concurrent findings of facts of the courts below. Hence the appeal. =Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The High Court erroneously set aside the concurrent findings of facts of the two well reasoned judgments of the courts below. [Para 15] [417-C] 1.2. The High Court has not examined the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record in proper perspective. The High Court ought to have appreciated that the plaintiff while leaving the village asked his brother (defendant) that he should look after the land which was in the share of the plaintiff also and keep the account of usufruct or income from the property of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had always remained a co-owner of the property in question. While leaving the village he asked his brother to look after the property in his absence. From that it can never be construed that the plaintiff at any point of time did not remain co-owner of the property or surrendered his interest in the property. The defendant is guilty of taking entirely dishonest defences before the trial court. The court should always effectively discard such a dishonest conduct. [Para 14] [416-G-H; 417-A-B] 1.3. The impugned judgment of the High Court is wholly unsustainable, illegal, perverse and against the norms of any civilized society. The judgment of the High Court has demolished the entire fiber of joint family system of our country and has put premium on the dishonesty of the defendant and the same deserves to be set aside. It is unfortunate if one brother cannot trust his own brother even to this extent then how can peace and tranquility prevail in the society. The saddest part is that the High Court while setting aside the concurrent findings of the two courts has put judicial seal of approval on such a dishonest conduct of the defendant. The impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The defendant did not have any case either in law or equity. [Para 16] [417-D-F] P. Lakshmi Reddy v. L. Lakshmi Reddy AIR 1957 SC 314 and Corea v. Appuhamy 1912 AC 230 (C), referred to. Case Law Reference: AIR 1957 SC 314 referred to Para 7 1912 AC 230 (C) referred to Para 7 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 829 of 2002. From the Judgment & Order dated 24.08.2000 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench in Civil Second Appeal No. 103 of 1982. K.K Rai and Amboj Kumar (for Krishnanand Pandeya) for the Appellants. B.S. Banthia and Vikas Upadhyay for the Respondents.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.829 OF 2002 Bonder & Anr. … Appellants Versus Hem Singh (dead) by LRs. & Ors. … Respondents JUDGMENT Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench at … Continue reading →