Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-000720-000720 – 2015 |
| Diary Number | 1976/2013 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | None |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms High Court’s interference on perversity |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure; Property Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Supreme Court held that a High Court in a second appeal may set aside concurrent findings of fact only if they are perverse, i.e., founded on no evidence or on record implausibilities. Unchallenged corrections in public revenue records retain sanctity unless disproved, and mere dumping of waste or manure does not amount to possession. Unsupported oral-partition claims, without pleading or evidence, cannot defeat a registered title deed. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon | Applied the “perversity” test under Section 100 CPC for second appeals; upheld the sanctity of corrected public revenue records filed pre-suit; reaffirmed that possession requires exclusive enjoyment, not mere dumping of materials. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Plaintiff sued for declaration of title and possession (150 m²) plus injunction against dumping of waste in an adjacent open plot. Defendants relied on corrected revenue records (109.70 m²) and claimed oral partition and common use. Trial and first-appellate courts dismissed the suit; High Court reversed as perverse. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All courts and tribunals in India |
| Persuasive For | High Courts deciding second appeals on perversity grounds |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Correction of public revenue records during litigation retains full evidentiary value if application preceded suit.
- Mere deposition of waste or manure on land, without more, cannot constitute “possession” for title or injunction purposes.
- Under Section 100 CPC, “perversity” remains the sole ground for interfering with concurrent factual findings.
- Unsupported oral-partition claims require strict pleading and evidence; failure to produce witnesses or documents is fatal.
- Burden to disprove unchallenged public records lies squarely on the challenger.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Concurrent Findings Reviewed: Trial and first-appellate courts held plaintiff failed to prove title over the entire 150 m² (Ext.81) and open plot; High Court found those factual rejections perverse.
- Standard of “Perversity”: Court reiterated that second appeal under Section 100 CPC is confined to perversity—findings based on no evidence or irreconcilable with record.
- Sanctity of Revenue Records: Noted that correction application was filed pre-suit; latest public records showing 150 m² may not be distrusted absent positive disproof by defendants.
- Possession Doctrine: Held that dumping of manure/waste is inconsistent with exclusive possession; plaintiff’s vendor’s long-standing enjoyment was sufficient.
- Oral Partition Claim: Defendant’s claim of common use via oral partition lacked pleading, documentary proof, or witness testimony; thus could not supplant registered title.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellants / Defendants)
- Ext. 81 deed covered 150 m², but vendor’s actual possession was only 109.70 m² per revenue record.
- Revenue-record correction pre-dated suit; trial court wrongly distrusted it.
- No relief for recovery of possession was claimed; concurrent factual findings should stand.
Respondent (Plaintiff)
- Title deed Ext. 81 clearly covers the entire plot (150 m²), including open area.
- Defendants’ act of dumping waste/manure does not establish possession.
- Oral-partition claim unsupported by pleading or evidence and cannot defeat registered title.
Factual Background
The plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration of ownership, possession, and injunction over property described in registered sale deed (Ext. 81, 150 m²), comprising a residential plot and adjoining open land. Defendants challenged the extent via corrected revenue records showing only 109.70 m² and claimed the open plot by virtue of an alleged 1974 oral partition. They had been using the open area to dump waste and keep manure. The trial court and first-appellate court dismissed the suit, but the High Court reversed on the ground that those concurrent findings were perverse. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s judgment.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 100, Civil Procedure Code: The court reaffirmed that second appeals lie only on questions of law, including perversity of concurrent findings of fact.
- Section 34, Specific Relief Act, 1963: Discretionary nature of declaratory relief cannot justify upholding perverse factual conclusions.
- Public Record Principles: Corrected revenue records maintain their evidentiary value unless effectively disproved by adverse party.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed