Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SURAIN SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MEHENGA (DEAD) BY LRS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/02/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (2) 624 JT 1996 (3) 52
1996 SCALE (2)214
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
This appeal by special leave arises from the
judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in R.S.A.
No.878 of 1964 dated September 27, 1976. The
appellants/plaintiffs were non-suited by the High Court
on the finding that the sale deed was without
consideration (Ex.P-1) executed and registered on
September 29, 1959. Shri S.K. Gambhir, the learned
counsel for the appellants contended that the question
whether consideration has been passed is a pure
question of fact. The appellate Court having gone into
that aspect as Court of fact and having entered a
finding, reversal thereof by the High Court is illegal.
It is not in dispute that in the suit the respondents
contended that the sale deed was obtained by fraud,
misrepresentation and without consideration. The trial
Court dismissed the suit. But on appeal, the appellate
Court reversed the finding and held that neither fraud
nor misrepresentation was made out. Adequate
consideration was passed under the sale deed.
Therefore, it is a valid sale deed. The High Court
after considering the evidence ultimately recorded a
finding that there is no proof that the appellants had
paid the consideration. In that behalf, the High Court
has looked into the accounts maintained by the
appellant himself and it is stated thus:
"that no evidence has been led by
the respondents/appellants to show
that Rs.2350/- were due to them
from the appellants/respondents on
the basis of Bahi’s account and
bonds. It has also not been proved
by the respondents that the amount
of Rs.1650/- was paid by them to
the appellants."
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
On the basis of the said finding, the High Court
has reversed the decree of the appellate Court and
confirmed, though for different reasons, the decree of
the trial Court. Though normally the High Court might
not have interfered with the finding recorded by the
appellate Court, in view of the diverse views by the
trial Court and the appellate Court, the High Court was
impelled to go into the question and recorded a
finding. The material evidence and relevant
circumstances were not adverted to by the first
appellate Court. The High Court, therefore, had done
that exercise. It being a finding of fact, we do not
find it a fit case for our further interference.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. But in the
circumstances, without costs.