IMPORTANT POINT
In appeal by Special Leave, concurrent findings of the lower Courts cannot be assailed by making an effort to get the entire evidence re-appreciated as if the appeal is a third appeal.

Headnote:(i) Law of Succession-Customs in Lakshadweep Territory-Property in question belonged to Kandangalam tarwad-Kandangalam tarwad became extinct on death of its last member in 1958-Appellant-plaintiff belonging to Pattakkal tarwad-Claim that Pattakkal tarwad is an undivided branch of Pandambeli tarwad of which Kandangalam was another branch-Appellant s claim that as a member of sole surviving undivided unit of original Pandambeli tarwad he is entitled to succeed to all properties of Kandangalam by right of reversion -Findings of lower Courts that Pattakkal is not a collateral undivided branch of Pandambeli and Pandambeli, parent tarwad of Kandangalam was not in existence after 1906 and as such question of properties of Kandangalam being reverted to Pandambeli did not arise-Further finding that Kandangalam was a sub-branch of Thoopikkal branch of Pandambeli and Thoopikkal branch alone entitled to properties on principles that properties of extinct branch must go to tarwad from which it separated itself-Held: findings of lower Court warranted no interference -As per customs and records findings justified-Plaintiff s claim rightly rejected.
       (Paras 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 21, 24, 30, 32 and 33)
       (ii) Constitution of India-Article 136-Appeal by Special leave-Scope of jurisdiction-Supreme Court would not re-appreciate evidence as if appeal is a third appeal on facts except only in event of serious miscarriage of justice or manifest illegality but not otherwise.
       Held : As this appeal arises under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge as also of the High Court wherein concurrent findings of fact had been reached by both the courts on appreciation of evidence cannot be assailed by making an effort to get the entire evidence re-appreciated as if this is a third appeal on facts. It is not the practice of this Court to re-appreciate the evidence for the purpose of examining whether the finding of fact arrived at by the High Court and the Subordinate Court is correct or not. Exception can be taken only in the event of serious miscarriage of justice or manifest illegality but not otherwise. We had occasion to declare clearly the law on this score and as such no further dilation is called for but we only emphasise it once again that the Supreme Court is not a regular court of appeal to which every judgment of the High Court may be brought for a further security in regard to its correctness. There must be some patent error of law which have resulted in the miscarriage of justice as noticed above, otherwise and in the normal circumstances this Court would not justified in interfering with the orders of the High Court. The two Courts at an earlier stage of the proceeding did rely upon unimpeachable documentary evidence and we do not see any reason to come to a different conclusion than what is on record. (Para 34)

JUDGMENT

Bannerjee, J.-These appeals by the grant of special leave arising out of the judgments of Kerala High Court focus enforcement of certain ancient customs prevalent in the Lakshadweep Territory. The dispute relates to certain properties which belonged to a tarwad called Kandangalam which became extinct on the death of its last member in the year 1958.

2. Before proceeding with the matter any further on the factual score, be it noted that the submissions of the parties were confined to three specific issues raised in the matters: (i) whether Pattakkal is a branch of Pandambeli tarwad; (ii) if so, can they claim properties of Kandangalam branch which stands extinct in 1958; and (iii) when a divided branch becomes extinct who could be the heirs to inherit its property obtained from the common and parent tarwad.

3. The plaintiff-appellant herein, a member of the Pattakkal tarwad, instituted an action before the Tahsildar, being the authority to decide civil disputes in the Lakshadweep Islands claiming his entitlement to the properties of Kandangalam tarwad on the extinction of the said tarwad and prayed for recovery of possession. The plaintiff s definite assertion in the plaint is that the Pattakkal tarwad is an undivided branch of Pandambeli tarwad of which Kandamgalam was another branch and as such on the extinction of the latter tarwad Pattakkal tarwad of which the plaintiff is a member is the sole surviving undivided unit of the original Pandambeli tarwad and is thus entitled to succeed to all the properties and the assets of Kandangalam by rights of reversion.

4. Incidentally, this particular litigation has a chequered career. The Tehsildar dismissed the suit in the year 1963 and an appeal before the Appellate Authority, namely, Development Officer of the L.M. & A. Islands in terms of the provisions of Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands (Civil Courts) Regulation, 1965 came over to the file of the High Court at Kerala and the appeal registered A.S. No. 409 of 1968 was allowed by the High Court by its judgment dated 20th July, 1973. In its judgment the High Court set aside the order of the Tehsildar and the matter was however remitted to the Sub- Court Kavaratti for fresh disposal on merits. The learned Subordinate Judge in terms of the order of the High Court, however, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not been able to establish that Pattakkal is a collateral undivided branch of Pandambeli tarwad having any interest in the properties of Pandambeli tarwad. It was held that Pandambeli, the parent tarwad of Kandangalam was not in existance even after 1906 and hence there is no question of the properties of Kandamgalam tarwad being reverted to Pandambeli and as such the plaintiff cannot lay any claim to those properties. The learned Subordinate Judge also found that Kandangalam was a sub-branch of Thoopikkal branch of Pandambeli tarwad and alone was entitled to the properties on the principle that the properties of the extinct branch must go to the tarwad from which it separated itself. Being, aggrieved, however, the matter came up before the High Court in appeal and the High Court also did lend its concurrence with the findings of the learned Subordinate Judge and dismissed the appeal without any interference and hence these appeals before this Court.

5. Before adverting to respective submission an advanced it would be rather profitable to note certain historical data of the people of Androth and Ameni islands. A lucid details whereof would appear from R.H. Ellis s account of the Laccadive Islands and Minicoy. Ellis noted:

"The religion is Muhammadan. Like the Moplahs on the mainland, the islanders belong to the Shafi school of the Sunni sect and acknowledge, besides the Koran, the authority of the Sunneh or customary law as interpreted by Shafi. They are very strict in all their religious observances and have earned a great reputation for orthodoxy and piety among Muhammadans on the mainland. The men of Androt

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1999 Supreme(SC) 1536

IMPORTANT POINTIn appeal by Special Leave, concurrent findings of the lower Courts cannot be assailed by making an effort to get the entire evidence re-appreciated as if the appeal is a third appeal.

Cases Referred (1)

IMPORTANT POINT
In appeal by Special Leave, concurrent findings of the lower Courts cannot be assailed by making an effort to get the entire evidence re-appreciated as if the appeal is a third appeal.