Lal Vs. Asharfi Lal & Ors  INSC 340 (25 March 1997)
RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA
O R D
E R Leave granted.
respondent Nos.1 and 2 had filed a suit for permanent injunction, possession
and damages against the appellant and the proforma respondent No.3 on the
premise that they were licensees in respect of part of the house belonging to Baij
Nath and, therefore, had no manner of right whalsoever to be in possession
after the revocation of the licence. The appellant set up the plea that he
contributed half of the amount in the construction of the house along with Baij
Nath and that he has been residing therein ever since. The house also was got
mutated in 1957 in the joint name of himself and Baij Nath and, therefore, the
injunction sought for could not be granted. Both the trial court as well as the
first appellate court had negatived the case of the respondents and dismissed
the suit. In the second appeal, the learned single Judge of the High Court
framed two questions for consideration, namely, whether merely by contributing
some amount towards construction of the disputed house, the appellant can claim
half share in the house and whether the judgment of the two courts below are
the result of total mis-reading of evidence and of recording the finding while
ignoring the oral as well as documentary evidence on record Judge, as if he
were the First Appellate Court has gone into the questions of fact and recorded
the finding against the appellant. Thus, he reversed the decree of the trial
court and the appellate Court.
contended for the appellant, on the basis of the documentary evidence adduce in
proof of the mutation and his enjoyment ever since 1957 during the life time of
Baij Nath who did not even object to his being in possession and enjoyment of
the half share in the house that the view taken by the High court is not
correct. He also pointed out that the finding of the High court that the
material evidence was ignored by the courts below is not correct as the
evidence has been appreciated and the High court came to the conclusion that
the respondents had not established their case.
contended for the respondents/plaintiffs, on the other hand, that the evidence
of Ram Pyari, the mother of the parties was not properly considered. She was
the best person to show how the property was enjoyed and the other evidence
also was not properly considered. On the basis of surmises, the trial Court and
the appellate Court had come to a wrong conclusion. Therefore, it is a
substantial mistake of law which the High court has rightly corrected.
considered the respective contentions, the question that arises for
consideration is whether the High Court is right in disturbing the concurrent
findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the appellate court ? It is
not in dispute that material documents had been filled, as indicated in the
judgment of the first appellate Court itself. It is also not also not in
dispute that the mutation proceedings having taken place during the life-time
of Baij Nath of the municipality do indicate that the property was mutated in
the joint names of Baij Nath and the appellant.
the life time of Baij Nath no demur of the right to residence and continuance
in half share of the property was controverted nor ever that the appellant is
the son of first husband of Ram Pyari and the respondents are the children born
to Baij Nath in the second Marriage. In view of the fact that the parties are
closely inter-related and having lived jointly at least from 1957, The obvious
inference that they had been inducted into possession by Baij Nath even
treating them as members of the family, is irresistible. Under these
circumstances, the suit of injunction etc. against them is unsustainable in
law. The trial Court and the appreciated the same came to the finding of fact.
The said findings cannot be characterised to be surmises; nor can they be said
to have ignored the material evidence. Under these circumstances, the High
Court was wrong in interfering with the concurrent findings.
appeal is according accordingly allowed. The judgment of the High Court stands
set aside and that of the appellate Court and the trial Court stands confirmed.