Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 6196 of 2000
PETITIONER:
Krishnananda
RESPONDENT:
Kattu Siva Ashram and Ors.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/01/2007
BENCH:
S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
S.B. SINHA, J. :
1. The defendant No. 4 in the original suit is the appellant before us. The
plaintiff is the first respondent herein. The suit of the original
plaintiff was dismissed. The defendant No. 4 did not prefer any appeal
thereagainst.
2. Appellant claimed title over the land by adverse possession. The said
claim was negatived by the learned Trial Judge. The First Appellate Court,
however, opined that both the plaintiff (respondent No. 1 herein) and
defendant No. 4 (appellant herein) had not acquired any title to the
property.
3. Aggrieved by certain findings arrived at by the First Appellate Court,
the appellant preferred a second appeal before the High Court of Madras
which was dismissed summarily. The High Court opined that as defendant No.
4 did not file any suit nor the Trial Court having given any relief in that
behalf, the appeal was not maintainable.
4. The appellant is before us aggrieved by the said order of the High
Court.
5. There cannot be any doubt that the second appeal filed a the instance of
the appellant herein was not maintainable as the First Appellate Court had
merely arrived at certain findings which might be relevant for the purpose
of determination of an issue by and between the appellant and the original
plaintiff, but the same were not relevant for determination of an issue
amongst the defendants inter se. Moreover, no decree against the appellant
was preferred.
6. It is stated before us by Mr. Sundaravaradan, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4, that in view of the fact
that the aforementioned Raman Pillai died without leaving behind any issue;
escheat proceeding has been initiated. If that be so, there cannot be any
doubt, whatsoever, that the appellant herein would be entitled to raise all
contentions in regard to his title in appropriate proceedings, if initiated
against him. He may even bring a fresh proceedings against the said
respondent.
7. The appellant has sought to produce before us a purported Will dated
5.1.1965, executed by the said Raman Pillai. We, however, reject the prayer
of the appellant to take the said Will on record as the contention that
Raman Pillai bequeathed his entire property in his favour should not be
allowed to be raised before us at this stage for the first time. This
appeal is dismissed with the aforementioned observations. No costs.