"Perverse Finding", "Ignored Material Evidence": SC Sets Aside HC Judgment In Property Dispute
|In a property dispute case, the Supreme Court set aside a High Court judgment observing that it was perverse on appreciated evidence and also ignored material evidence.
In this case, the plaintiff sought to nullify a sale deed, alleging an oral partition and bequeathal whereas the Defendants asserted legitimate ownership, challenging the suit. The High Court had relied on certain documents, including two sale deeds and a mortgage deed related to different pieces of land, to support the existence of an oral partition.
“Only on the basis of the two sale deeds and one mortgage deed, which relate to different piece and parcels of land, the High Court recorded a perverse finding that oral partition had taken place. It also did not deal with the other findings recorded by the Courts below”, the Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal observed.
Advocate M. A. Chinnasamy appeared for the Appellants.
An appeal was filed before the Apex Court challenging the judgment and order of the High Court that allowed the Plaintiff's appeal, setting aside the judgments of the Trial Court and the Sub-Judge. The Plaintiff sought the nullification of a sale deed, claiming ownership of the property, alleging an oral partition and subsequent bequeathal. The Defendants denied the oral partition, asserting the legitimate ownership and challenging the suit for non-joinder of necessary parties.
The plaintiffs' claim was based on an alleged will, which was dismissed due to failure to prove it as per legal provisions. The Trial Court found the suit flawed for non-joinder of necessary parties and ruled against the Plaintiffs, a decision upheld by the Appellate Court. The High Court, however, allowed the second appeal, relying on certain documents mentioning boundaries, and decreed the suit based on the premise of a proved oral partition.
The Court noted that the two sale deeds were related to different properties, not the specified survey number. The record did not support any evidence of a partition concerning the mentioned survey number. The suit property was never registered in the Plaintiff's name. The will forming the basis of the plaintiff's claim was not proven according to legal standards. Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court examined the documents, and the two sale deeds, and concluded they were insufficient to prove the alleged oral partition regarding the survey number.
Furthermore, the Bench noted that despite the plaintiffs claiming that the land in question originated from Avinashi Gounder, the record includes two pattas revealing that the survey number was jointly allotted to plaintiff no.1 and eight others without any partition. This admission by the plaintiffs during their deposition was considered by both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. However, the High Court overlooked both oral and documentary evidence, basing its decision solely on two sale deeds and one mortgage deed related to different pieces of land. The High Court's finding of an oral partition was deemed perverse, and it failed to address other findings made by the lower courts.
The Court held that the High Court's judgment was flawed, as it did not consider the lack of evidence supporting the oral partition, the absence of the suit property in the plaintiffs' names, and the unproven will.
Based on the preceding discussion and the aforementioned findings, the Bench noted that the impugned judgment was unsustainable. It not only falls outside the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) but is also considered perverse, as it fails to appreciate and disregards significant evidence.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order.
Cause Title: Rajendhiran v Muthaiammal @ Muthayee & Ors. (2024 INSC 12)