Bonder & ANR. Vs.
Hem Singh(Dead) By l.R.S.& Ors  INSC 1080 (15 May 2009)
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.829 OF 2002 Bonder &
Anr. ... Appellants Versus Hem Singh (dead) by LRs. & Ors. ... Respondents
Dalveer Bhandari, J.
appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench at Indore in Civil Second Appeal No. 103 of 1982
order to appreciate the controversy involved in the case, it is necessary to
recapitulate the basic facts of the case.
appellants' father Sukhram (since deceased) filed a suit bearing Civil Original
Suit No. 230A of 1972 before the learned Fifth Civil Judge, Indore, Madhya
Pradesh against Jagannath (since deceased). It was pleaded, inter alia, that
Sukhram (plaintiff) and Jagannath (defendant) were brothers and sons of
Narsingh, who died leaving behind 22.39 acres of agricultural land and an
ancestral house in village Kadwali Khurd. The said land was jointly cultivated
and the house was jointly occupied by both the brothers.
Sukhram went to his
maternal uncle's house to look after his property. Sukhram before leaving the
village went to his brother Jagannath and requested him that he would be
looking after his maternal uncle's property and till he returned to his
village, the property may be looked after by him (Jagannath) and he be given
the usufruct or income from his share of the property.
return, Sukhram demanded the possession of the property of his share and also
demanded the income derived from the said property from Jagannath, but he did
not pay any attention to his request. Ultimately, Sukhram had to issue a notice
on 13.6.1971 to Jagannath. The said notice 3 was served upon Jagannath on
19.6.1971 but even then he did not give possession of the land and the income
from it to Sukhram during the period when he was away. Ultimately, Sukhram
filed a civil suit and claimed possession and future mesne profits at the rate
of Rs.1,000/- per year and Rs.8,000/- for the past mesne profits.
his written statement, defendant Jagannath surprisingly taken following pleas
that:- (a) the parties were not brothers, but step brothers;
(b) the house in
dispute was in a dilapidated condition at the time of death of his father;
(c) the property was
not partible and the plaintiff Sukhram was not entitled to any share in it. It
was also incorporated in the written statement that father of the parties had
taken loan from different persons and had created a charge of Rs.5,000/- over
the land and the house and that it was not possible to discharge the debt from
the income of the said property and, therefore, immediately after the death of
their father, the plaintiff Sukhram went to his in-law's house and started
living there. It was further stated by defendant 4 Jagannath that he
discharged the loan from the earnings of the property, income from the service
and business of cattle and while doing so rebuilt the house and developed the
property. He further stated that he also sunk a well spending a sum of
Rs.4,000/-. Sukhram came back to his village and demanded his share, but
Jagannath did not accede to his request and turned him out. Defendant Jagannath
pleaded absolute ouster of Sukhram and claimed that he had perfected his title
by adverse possession. In the alternative, it was also submitted that as he had
spent money for construction of the house, development of the land and sinking
of the well, in case a decree is to be granted in favour of the plaintiff, half
of the expenses be given to him. He, however, prayed for dismissal of the suit.
learned Civil Judge decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff Sukhram. The
plaintiff's case is crystal clear that he had entrusted his share of immovable
properties to his brother Jagannath to look after it and return the same to him
on his return along with the usufruct or income derived from his share of the
immovable properties. The evidence does not reveal that the plaintiff left the
suit property with a view to permanently abandoning it.
first Appellate Court relied upon the decision in P. Lakshmi Reddy v. L Lakshmi
Reddy AIR 1957 SC 314 at para 4, wherein this Court referred to the decision in
Corea v. Appuhamy 1912 AC 230 (C). In the said case the principle of law has
been clearly enunciated. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as
"It is well
settled that in order to establish adverse possession of one co-heir as against
another it is not enough to show that one of them is in sole possession or
enjoyment of the profits of the properties. Ouster of the non-possessing co-
heir by the co-heir in possession who claims his possession to be adverse,
should be made out.
The possession of one
co-heir is considered, in law, as possession of all the co-heirs. The co-heir
in possession cannot render his possession adverse to the other co-heir not in
possession merely by any secret hostile animus on his own part in derogation of
the other co-heirs title. It is a well settled rule of law that as between
co-heirs there must be evidence of open assertion of hostile title, coupled
with exclusive possession and enjoyment by one of them to the knowledge of the
other so as to constitute ouster."
principle has been consistently applied by the Indian courts.
first Appellate Court also held that even in the revenue records the name of
plaintiff Sukhram continues to show that the defendant Jagannath never
considered the plaintiff Sukhram as ousted and not continuing as a co- heir.
first Appellate Court upheld the judgment of the trial court and observed that
the trial court was right in holding that it is not proved that the defendant's
title over the suit land has been perfected by adverse possession and ouster of
the plaintiff to his knowledge for more than 12 years. The first Appellate
Court dismissed the appeal with costs and the preliminary decree passed by the
trial court was confirmed.
plaintiff respondent, aggrieved by the judgment of the first Appellate Court
(Eighth Addl. District Judge, Indore) preferred second appeal before the High
Court. The High Court by the impugned order set aside the concurrent findings
of facts of the courts below and allowed the appeal.
The High Court, while
setting aside the concurrent findings of facts of courts below, gave very
unusual, strange and 7 totally unsustainable reasonings. The High Court
observed that the plaintiff, according to his own pleadings, left the village
somewhere between 1935-40 and received his share in the property up to the year
1950 and thereafter all his rights were denied and defendant Jagannath asserted
his absolute right in the property. According to the impugned judgment of the
High Court, the two courts had not taken into consideration the pleadings of
the parties and the admissions made by the plaintiff which have important
bearing on the facts of the case and the appreciation of the evidence.
High Court held that the findings recorded by the two courts are not only wrong
and illegal but also perverse.
The High Court in the
impugned judgment also observed that the plaintiff, though, has proved that he
was the joint owner of the property, but has failed to prove that he continued
to be the joint owner of the property and had no knowledge about the hostility
asserted by defendant Jagannath, and his exclusion. It was further held that
the defendant was successful in proving the exclusion of the plaintiff and the
said exclusion was to the knowledge of the 8 plaintiff. According to the High
Court, the suit of the plaintiff was patently barred by limitation.
plaintiff Sukhram, aggrieved by the said judgment of the High Court, has
preferred this appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution.
High Court has not examined the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record
in proper perspective. The High Court ought to have appreciated that the
plaintiff while leaving the village asked his brother (defendant) that he
should look after the land which was in the share of the plaintiff also and
keep the account of usufruct or income from the property of the plaintiff. The
plaintiff had always remained a co-owner of the property in question. While
leaving the village he asked his brother to look after the property in his
absence. From that it can never be construed that the plaintiff at any point of
time did not remain co-owner of the property or surrendered his interest in the
property. The defendant is guilty of taking entirely dishonest defences before
the trial court. The court should always effectively discard such a dishonest
our considered opinion, the High Court erroneously set aside the concurrent
findings of facts of the two well reasoned judgments of the courts below.
impugned judgment of the High Court is wholly unsustainable, illegal, perverse
and against the norms of any civilized society. The judgment of the High Court
has demolished the entire fiber of joint family system of our country and has
put premium on the dishonesty of the defendant and the same deserves to be set
aside. It is unfortunate if one brother cannot trust his own brother even to
this extent then how can peace and tranquility prevail in the society? The
saddest part is that the High Court while setting aside the concurrent findings
of the two courts has put judicial seal of approval on such a dishonest conduct
of the defendant (Jagannath). The impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be
sustained and is accordingly set aside. The defendant did not have any case
either in law or equity.
appeal is allowed with costs which is quantified at Rs.50,000/- to be paid by
the respondent to the appellant herein within two months.
(Dr. Mukundakam Sharma)