NDLI: Thulasidhara & Another Vs. Narayanappa & Others

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Suit for title and permanent injunction substantial question of law s.100 re-appreciation of evidence not permissible
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Disposed Off
Headnote	Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: s.100 – Exercise of power under, scope – Suit for title and permanent injunction based on sale deed – Claim of defendants that suit property fell into share of husband of defendant no.1 and father of defendant no.2 and 3 by way of partition – Trial court dismissed the suit holding that the partition deed is admissible in evidence and the plaintiff in collusion with PW2 got executed a sham document in his favour – First appellate authority upheld the decision of trial court – High Court framed only one substantial question as to whether the appellant was the owner and in possession of the suit land as he purchased it subsequent to the partition deed – High Court allowed the appeal holding that the partition deed required registration and therefore was inadmissible in evidence and that both the courts below were not justified in holding that the sale deed was only nominal one – On appeal, held: The jurisdiction of High Court under s.100 after the 1976 amendment is confined only with the second appeal involving a substantial question of law – In the instant case, no substantial question of law was framed – Trial court as well as first appellate court, both gave cogent reasons on appreciation of evidence on record more particularly the sale deed and the partition deed and held that the plaintiff was not entitled to declaration that he became the owner – While interfering with the orders by both the courts below, High Court again re-appreciated the entire evidence on record, which in exercise of powers under s.100 was not permissible – Under the circumstances, High Court committed a grave/manifest error in quashing and setting aside the findings recorded by both the courts below, which were on appreciation of evidence on record – Partition. Partition: The case of defendants was that husband of defendant no.1 and father of defendant no.2 and 3 purchased the suit property on 12.12.1948 under a registered sale deed – Said property was blended into the joint family properties by him – Thereafter when partition took place said suit property fell into his share – Plaintiff filed suit for declaration of title on the basis of sale deed – Trial court and first appellate court held that the said sale deed was only a nominal sale deed and not an out and out sale deed since it was executed as security for loan and never intended to sell the suit property – High Court allowed the appeal holding that in view of the registered sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff became the actual owner – On appeal, held: Father of defendants was not a signatory to the sale deed and therefore it was not binding on him or his heirs – Even otherwise, in a suit for a declaration on the basis of the registered sale deed, it is always open for the defendant, who is a stranger to the sale deed, to raise a plea that the sale deed was void, fictitious, collusive or not intended to be acted upon and or not binding to him – Partition deed relied upon by the defendants could be said to be a Palupatti which means list of properties partitioned – At the most, it can be said to be a family arrangement – Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the same was not required to be registered – The execution of this document/ Partition Deed/ Palupatta dated 23.04.1971 was established and proved by examining different witnesses – Even the plaintiff also categorically admitted that the oral partition took place on 23.04.1971 and he also admitted that 3 to 4 punchayat people were also present – Therefore, the same even can be used as corroborative evidence as explaining the arrangement made thereunder and conduct of the parties – So far as sale deed dated 18.05.1973 executed in favour of the plaintiff was concerned, there was serious dispute with respect to consideration paid by the plaintiff – In the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court was not justified in interfering with the findings recorded by both the courts below – The orders passed by both the courts below dismissing the suit are restored.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah
Neutral Citation	2019 INSC 603
Petitioner	Thulasidhara & Another
Respondent	Narayanappa & Others
SCR	[2019] 8 S.C.R. 212
Judgement Date	2019-05-01
Case Number	784

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Thulasidhara & Another Vs. Narayanappa & Others

Please Log-in to view this content

S. Subramanian Vs. S. Ramasamy Etc. Etc.

Babu Lal & Ors. Vs. M/s Vijay Solvex Ltd. & Ors.

H.v. Vedavyasachar Vs. Shivashankara & Anr.

Kamlesh Prabhudas Tanna & Another Vs. State of Gujarat

M/s Gomzi Active Vs. M/s Reebok India Co. & Anr.

Madan Lal and Anr Vs. Bal Krishan and Ors.

Dharmarajan and Others Vs. Valliammaland Ors.

Mallikarjun and Others Vs. State of Karnataka

Sasikumar and Ors. Vs. Kunnath Chellappan Nair and Ors.

Thulasidhara & Another Vs. Narayanappa & Others

Thulasidhara & Another Vs. Narayanappa & Others

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

S. Subramanian Vs. S. Ramasamy Etc. Etc.

Babu Lal & Ors. Vs. M/s Vijay Solvex Ltd. & Ors.

H.v. Vedavyasachar Vs. Shivashankara & Anr.

Kamlesh Prabhudas Tanna & Another Vs. State of Gujarat

M/s Gomzi Active Vs. M/s Reebok India Co. & Anr.

Madan Lal and Anr Vs. Bal Krishan and Ors.

Dharmarajan and Others Vs. Valliammaland Ors.

Mallikarjun and Others Vs. State of Karnataka

Sasikumar and Ors. Vs. Kunnath Chellappan Nair and Ors.

Thulasidhara & Another Vs. Narayanappa & Others