Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
MARI CHETTIAR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
S.P. ARUMUGA NAICKER
DATE OF JUDGMENT22/09/1993
BENCH:
KULDIP SINGH (J)
BENCH:
KULDIP SINGH (J)
SINGH N.P. (J)
CITATION:
1995 SCC Supl. (1) 152
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
ORDER
1.Naicker, respondent in appeal herein, instituted a suit
for declaration and possession in respect of the property in
dispute against Mari, the appellant defendant, before us in
this appeal. The suit was dismissed by the trial court.
The lower appellate court upheld the findings of the trial
court and dismissed the appeal. The High Court, however, in
second appeal reversed the findings of the two courts below
and decreed the suit.
2.The facts in a nutshell are that Mari agreed to
purchase the property in dispute from Kandappa Gounder by
way of the agreement dated October 17, 1966. According to
Mari he fell short of money and as such approached Naicker
and borrowed a sum of Rs 4000 from him and as a security for
the loan he got the sale deed executed in favour of Naicker
on April 9, 1967 in respect of the property in dispute.
Thereafter, Naicker entered into an agreement dated April 9,
1967 with Mari to sell the same property to him. It is
further not disputed that Mari got the property in dispute
on lease from Naicker by way of a lease deed dated April 12,
1967. The three last mentioned documents were registered.
3.The case of the respondent-plaintiff was that the sale
deed dated April 9, 1967 being registered was valid and
genuine and as such he was entitled to have the declaration
and possession of the suit property. On the other hand, the
appellant-defendant claimed that all the three transactions
were sham, he had borrowed a sum of Rs 4000 from Naicker and
the documents were entered only to secure the payment of the
said loan. The trial court, on appreciation of evidence,
came to the conclusion that the sale deed was a sham
transaction and was only entered into to secure the loan.
As mentioned above the lower appellate court upheld the
findings of the trial Court.
4.We are of the view that the High Court was not
justified in reversing the findings of fact concurrently
reached by the trial court and the lower appellate court.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
There was no question of law, whatsoever, before the High
Court in the second appeal. The High Court went into the
evidence, re-appreciated the same and reversed the findings
of the courts below. The High Court exceeded the
jurisdiction vested in it under Section 100 Civil Procedure
Code. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the
judgment of the High Court and restore that of the trial
court and dismiss the suit of the respondent-plaintiff.
While allowing the appeal we are of the view that in the
facts and circumstances of this case, the interest of
justice would be squarely met if the appellant is directed
to pay a sum of Rs 25,000 to the respondent by way of
compensation. We order accordingly. The appellant shall
pay the SLIM of Rs 25,000 to the respondent within three
months from today. Failing to pay the amount within the
said period it shall earn interest at the rate of 15% per
annum thereafter. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in
the above terms. No costs.