T. RAMALINGESWARA RAO (DEAD) THR. LRS. vs. N. MADHAVA RAO

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL  APPEAL No. 3408 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.23575 of 2011) T. Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead) Thr. LRs. & Anr. ….Appellant(s) VERSUS N. Madhava Rao & Ors.               ….Respondent(s)                   J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and   order   dated   23.11.2010   passed   by   the   High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in   Second   Appeal   No.1036   of   2006   whereby   the Signature Not Verified High   Court   allowed   the   second   appeal   filed   by Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2019.04.05 15:52:54 IST Reason: respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein.   1 3. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of this appeal, which involves a short point. 4. The appellants herein are defendant Nos.1 and 2, respondent Nos.1­3  herein are the plaintiffs and respondent Nos.5­9 are the defendant Nos.4­8   of the civil suit out of which this appeal arises. 5. Respondent Nos.1­3 (plaintiffs) filed a civil suit against the appellants (defendant Nos.1 and 2) and respondent   Nos.5   to   9   (defendant   Nos.4   to   8) seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants restraining   them   from   interfering   in   his   peaceful possession over the suit properties.  6. The   appellants   (defendant   Nos.1   and   2) contested   the   suit   whereas   the   remaining defendants (4 to 8) remained   ex parte .   The Trial Court   by   judgment/decree   dated   20.08.2001 dismissed the suit.  Respondent Nos.1­3 (plaintiffs) felt   aggrieved   and   filed   first   appeal   before   the Additional   District   &   Sessions   Judge(Fast   Track 2 Court),   Visakhapatnam.     By   judgment   dated 07.11.2005, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment/decree of the Trial Court.  7. The   plaintiffs   (respondent   Nos.1­3)   felt aggrieved and filed second appeal in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. By impugned order, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment impugned therein and decreed the plaintiffs’ suit by passing  a  decree for  perpetual injunction against the   defendants   in   relation   to   the   suit   property, which has given rise to filing of the present appeal by way of special leave in this Court by defendant Nos.1 and 2. 8. So,   the   short   question,   which   arises   for consideration in this appeal, is whether the High Court was justified in allowing the plaintiffs’ second appeal and thereby was justified in decreeing their suit by  granting  a decree  of  perpetual injunction 3 against defendant Nos.1 and 2 in relation to the suit property.  9. Having   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are   constrained   to   allow   the   appeal   and   while setting   aside   the   impugned   order   restore   the judgment/decree of the First Appellate Court and the Trial Court which resulted in dismissal of the plaintiffs’ suit. 10. In   our   considered   opinion,   the   High   Court erred   in   interfering   in   the   concurrent   findings   of facts of the two Courts below, which dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit.  11. In   our   view,   the   Trial   Court   and   the   First Appellate Court on appreciating the evidence of the parties had rightly come to a conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to prove the ingredients necessary for the grant of perpetual injunction. 4 12. When   the   two   Courts   below   have   recorded concurrent   findings   of   fact   against   the   plaintiffs, which   are   based   on   appreciation   of   facts   and evidence,   in   our   view,   such   findings   being concurrent in nature are binding on the High Court. It   is   only   when   such   findings   are   found   to   be against any provision of law or against the pleading or evidence or are found to be wholly perverse, a case for interference may call for by the High Court in its second appellate jurisdiction.  13. Such was not the case made out in the High Court.  It is for this reason, we are of the view that the High Court should not have interfered in the findings of the two Courts below and instead, the findings   should   have   been   upheld   by   the   High Court. 14. Coming now to the facts of the case, we find that the plaintiffs (respondent Nos.1­3) have no case 5 much   less   prima   facie   for   grant   of   perpetual injunction.  15. The suit property is a part of big chunk of land owned by several brothers who inherited the same after the death of their father, namely, Poornayya.  16. The appellants (defendant Nos.1 and 2) are the purchasers   of   the   suit   land   from   one   of   the   co­ sharers (one of the brothers) by a registered sale deed. Respondent Nos.1­3 (plaintiffs) are the sons of another co­sharer (brother). 17. In our view, even assuming that the plaintiffs claimed   to   be   in   possession   of   the   suit   property (which the two Courts below did not find in their favour) for claiming injunction, yet they were not entitled  to  claim  injunction against  the other co­ sharers   over   the   suit   property.   It   is   a   settled principle of law that the possession of one co­sharer is possession of all co­sharers, it cannot be adverse to them, unless there is a denial of their right to 6 their knowledge by the person in possession, and exclusion   and   ouster   following   thereon   for   the statutory period. [ See Mohammad Baqar & Ors. vs. Naim­un­Nisa Bibi & Ors. (AIR 1956 SC 548)] 18.    So far as the claim of the plaintiffs as being in exclusive possession to the exclusion of others was concerned, the same was held not proved by the two Courts below. 19. Defendant   Nos.1   and   2   (appellants   herein) being the purchasers of the suit property from one of  the  co­sharers stepped into the  shoes  of their vendor   (co­sharer)   and,   therefore,   had   a   right   to defend their title and possession against the other co­sharer.  20. In the light of the aforesaid admitted position arising in the case, in our view, the plaintiffs had no case   to   claim   injunction   against   defendant   Nos.1 and   2   in   relation   to   the   suit   property.   The   two 7 Courts below, therefore, rightly declined it and we affirm the same. 21. As   noted   above,   the   High   Court   failed   to appreciate the factual and legal controversy in its proper   perspective   and,   therefore,   erred   in interfering   in   the   concurrent   findings   of   the   fact without   recording   a   finding   as   to   why   the concurrent findings of fact are bad in law and why it requires   interference   in   its   second   appellate jurisdiction.  22. In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the   appeal,   set   aside   the   impugned   order   and restore the judgment/decree of the Trial Court/First Appellate Court which dismissed the suit filed by respondent Nos.1­3 (Plaintiffs).                                      .………...................................J.                                     [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]                                            …...……..................................J.              [DINESH MAHESHWARI] New Delhi; April 05, 2019 8 9