Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by defendant Nos.1 and 2, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court, which had dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for perpetual injunction. The dispute involved a suit property that was part of a larger chunk of land inherited by several brothers after their father Poornayya. The appellants were purchasers of the suit land from one co-sharer via a registered sale deed, while the respondents (plaintiffs) were sons of another co-sharer. The plaintiffs sought a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove the necessary ingredients for an injunction. The First Appellate Court affirmed this decision. However, the High Court, in second appeal, reversed these concurrent findings and decreed the suit. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with concurrent findings of fact without establishing that they were perverse or contrary to law. The Court emphasized that the possession of one co-sharer is possession of all co-sharers and cannot be adverse without ouster. Since the plaintiffs failed to prove exclusive possession, and the appellants, as purchasers from a co-sharer, stepped into the vendor's shoes, the plaintiffs had no right to injunction. The Supreme Court restored the dismissal of the suit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Interference with Concurrent Findings - Section 100 CPC - The High Court erred in interfering with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court, which dismissed the suit for perpetual injunction. The findings were based on appreciation of evidence and were not perverse or contrary to law. Held that such interference is impermissible unless the findings are against any provision of law, pleading, or evidence, or are wholly perverse (Paras 10-13). B) Property Law - Co-sharer Possession - Adverse Possession - The possession of one co-sharer is possession of all co-sharers and cannot be adverse unless there is denial of right to their knowledge and ouster for the statutory period. The plaintiffs failed to prove exclusive possession. Held that the principle from Mohammad Baqar v. Naimun-Nisa Bibi applies (Paras 17-18). C) Property Law - Purchaser from Co-sharer - Rights - A purchaser from a co-sharer steps into the shoes of the vendor and has the right to defend title and possession against other co-sharers. The plaintiffs were not entitled to injunction against such purchasers (Para 19).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal and decreeing the suit for perpetual injunction.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; impugned order of High Court set aside; judgment/decree of Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissing the suit restored.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact binding on High Court in second appeal
- Co-sharer possession is possession of all co-sharers
- Purchaser steps into shoes of vendor co-sharer
