Supreme Court of India
M. Ramachandra And Ors. vs Sri Doddamuniyappa And Anr. on 6 February, 2002
Equivalent citations: JT2002(SUPPL1)SC48, AIRONLINE 2002 SC 198, (2002) 1 JT (SUPP) 48, (2002) 5 ALL WC 4265, (2002) 47 ALL LR 793, (2002) 6 SUPREME 360, (2002) 3 JCR 110 (SC)
Bench: D.P. Mohapatra, Brijesh Kumar
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka confirming the judgment of the trial court and dismissing the first appeals RFA No. 50/90 and RFA No. 53/90.
3. The appellant filed two suits O.S. No.3262/82 and O.S. No. 198/83 citing the respondents as defendants. In O.S. No. 3262/82, he sought declaration of his title over the suit property and sought a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants. In O.S. No. 198/83 the plaintiff challenged the validity of the sale deed dated 17.8.1955 executed by his mother Lakshmakka for herself and as guardian of the plaintiff who was then a minor, in favour of defendant no. 1 Doddamuniyappa, who is respondent no. 1 herein. The case of the plaintiff in the former suit was that the suit property, a piece of vacant land described by the letters EFGH in exhibit P.21 was a part of his property under khata no. 48; and that the defendant no. 1 has no title to or possession over the said property. The defendant no. 1 who alone contested the suit took the stand that the suit land (SIC) it is a part of his land in khata no. 49 which he purchased from the mother, the plaintiff under the sale deed dated 17.8.1955 exhibit D-6. It is relevant to state here that the properties under khata no. 48 and khata no. 49 lie adjacent to each other, indeed the portions of properties in khata no. 48 lie on both sides of the property in khata no. 49. On both sides of the property in khata no. 49 are lands with or without structures on it, belonging to the plaintiff.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court formulated the main question for consideration as, whether the suit property was a part of the property of the defendant in khata no. 49? The parties produced evidence, both oral and documentary, in support of their respective cases. The trial court on appreciation of the evidence on record held that the suit property EFGH was part of the property of the defendant included in khata no. 49 and on the basis of such finding non-suited the plaintiff. The plaintiff assailed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in appeal before the High Court. During pendency of the appeal under the order passed by High Court, a commissioner was sent to measure the entire property and the different parcels of the same in khata nos. 48 and 49 and to report to the court. Accordingly, the commissioner submitted the report which was in favour of the defendant. The High Court on consideration of the matter, confirmed the finding of the trial court that the suit property was a part of khata no. 49 and dismissed the appeal.
5. Regarding the other suit, i.e. suit no. 198/83, both the trial court and the High Court dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation. It is not in dispute that the suit for setting aside the sale deed executed by the mother guardian of the appellant in favour of respondent no. 1 was filed more than three years after the appellant attained majority. Therefore, the courts below rightly dismissed the suit as barred by limitation.
6. The main thrust of the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the High Court has not independently considered the evidence adduced by the parties in the suit and has disposed of the two first appeals without recording any specific finding on the question, whether the suit property EFGH is part of khata no. 48 or khata no. 49.
7. On perusal, we find that the judgment passed by the High Court is not very satisfactory. The question whether in which of the two khatas is suit property included (khata no. 48 or no. 49) has not been pointedly discussed and no clear finding has been recorded on the point. Since the question is a short one, we have perused the judgment of the trial court in the light of the contentions raised by learned counsel appearing for the parties. In order to satisfy ourselves whether the judgment of the trial court suffer from any serious error which would have tilted the balance in favour of the appellants, had the High Court carefully examined the evidence and appreciated it in proper perspective. We are satisfied that on the evidence available on record, the trial court rightly recorded the finding that the suit property is a part of khata no. 49. From the record, it appears that a number of sale deeds were executed by the father and mother of plaintiff no. 1 in quick succession, transferring portions of the property in favour of the plaintiffs and also third parties. Thereafter, the purchasers have alienated the properties in favour of plaintiffs and the father and mother of plaintiff no. 1. In these sale deeds, no clear description of the properties sold had been given excepting some boundaries which had given rise to confusion regarding identity of the property sold. In such state of evidence, the finding was inescapable that the plaintiff failed to establish his title to the suit property and the suit was bound to fail. In the circumstances, no useful purpose would be served in remanding the case to the High Court for fresh disposal. We hope that the parties who are the neighbours would accept the factual position as determined in this litigation and have good neighbourly relationship with each other.
8. The appeals being devoid of merit are dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.