Supreme Court Restores Dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Suit in Property Dispute

This case revolves around a property dispute between the appellants, T. Ramalingeswara Rao (through legal representatives) and the respondents, N. Madhava Rao & Ors. The appellants, who are the defendants, contested the decision made by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in favor of the plaintiffs. The High Court had allowed the second appeal filed by the plaintiffs and passed a decree of perpetual injunction against the appellants in relation to the suit property. The appellants then filed an appeal in the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn the High Court’s decision.

Background of the Case

The plaintiffs, N. Madhava Rao & Ors., filed a civil suit against the appellants, seeking a perpetual injunction to prevent the appellants from interfering with their possession of the suit property. The appellants, on the other hand, denied these claims and argued that they had legal ownership of the land in question. The trial court, after hearing both parties, dismissed the suit, citing that the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims.

Disappointed with the decision, the plaintiffs filed an appeal in the First Appellate Court, which also ruled in favor of the appellants, upholding the dismissal of the suit. However, the plaintiffs were not ready to give up and approached the High Court, which in its judgment passed on November 23, 2010, reversed the findings of the lower courts and granted the plaintiffs a decree for perpetual injunction.

The appellants, aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, then approached the Supreme Court, seeking to have the High Court’s judgment set aside. The main question for the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in granting the plaintiffs a decree of perpetual injunction against the appellants.

Key Arguments of the Parties

Appellants’ Arguments

• The appellants argued that the High Court had erroneously interfered with the concurrent findings of fact made by both the trial court and the First Appellate Court.
• They pointed out that both the lower courts had dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit after carefully considering the evidence and facts. The appellants emphasized that the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession over the suit property, which was essential for granting an injunction.
• The appellants also highlighted the legal principle that the possession of one co-sharer is considered possession for all co-sharers and that the plaintiffs could not claim exclusive possession to the exclusion of others.

Respondents’ (Plaintiffs’) Arguments

• The plaintiffs contended that they had a rightful claim over the suit property and that the appellants were unlawfully interfering with their possession.
• The plaintiffs argued that the trial court and the First Appellate Court had overlooked key evidence that supported their claim for perpetual injunction.
• They further asserted that they had been in exclusive possession of the property, and their legal right to do so was being violated by the appellants.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the case, noted that the plaintiffs had failed to establish their exclusive possession of the suit property. The Court observed that the suit property was part of a larger piece of land that was inherited by several brothers after the death of their father, Poornayya. The appellants had purchased the property from one of the co-sharers (brothers) through a registered sale deed, and therefore, had a legal right to possess and defend their title to the land.

The Court further examined the legal principle that the possession of one co-sharer is considered possession for all co-sharers. In this case, the plaintiffs could not claim exclusive possession against the appellants, who were co-sharers in the property. The Supreme Court reiterated the rule established in Mohammad Baqar & Ors. vs. Naim-un-Nisa Bibi & Ors. (AIR 1956 SC 548), which states that possession by one co-sharer is not adverse to the others unless there is a clear denial of their right and an ouster that lasts for the statutory period.

The Court also noted that the High Court had failed to provide adequate reasoning for interfering with the findings of fact made by the trial court and the First Appellate Court. The concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on a thorough appreciation of the facts and evidence, and the High Court’s interference was not justified in this case.

Judgment

The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments of both parties, concluded that the High Court had erred in granting the decree of perpetual injunction in favor of the plaintiffs. The Court restored the judgment and decree of the trial court and the First Appellate Court, which had dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit.

The Court held that the plaintiffs had no case for claiming an injunction against the appellants, as the appellants had a rightful title to the property and were not interfering with the plaintiffs’ possession in any unlawful manner. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellants was allowed, and the High Court’s decision was set aside.

Conclusion

This case highlights the importance of establishing clear and convincing evidence when seeking a decree for injunction. It also emphasizes the principle that the possession of one co-sharer is deemed to be the possession of all co-sharers, and exclusive possession claims must be backed by strong evidence. The Supreme Court’s judgment reinforces the idea that findings of fact made by the trial court and the First Appellate Court are binding unless they are found to be perverse or contrary to law.

In this case, the plaintiffs’ failure to prove their possession and the rightful ownership of the appellants led to the restoration of the lower courts’ findings, ultimately rejecting the plaintiffs’ claim for a perpetual injunction.

Petitioner Name: T. Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead) Thr. LRs..
Respondent Name: N. Madhava Rao & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari.
Place Of Incident: Andhra Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 05-04-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: T. Ramalingeswara Ra vs N. Madhava Rao & Ors Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 05-04-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Specific Performance
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay Manohar Sapre
See all petitions in Judgment by Dinesh Maheshwari
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category