C. DODDANARAYANA REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS. VS C. JAYARAMA REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS. - Supreme Today AI
Hi Guest, You are using a Trial - Expire on , Click Here to Subscribe to Upgrade your Plan!

2020 0 AIR(SC) 1912 ; 2020 5 ALD(SC) 134 ; 2020 142 AllLR 198 ; 2020 2 ALT(SC) 36 ; 2020 1 ApexCJ(SC) 452 ; 2020 1 CurCC(SC) 395 ; 2020 0 DNJ 478 ; 2020 2 KCCR 963 ; 2020 1 KLJ 825 ; 2020 3 LW 335 ; 2021 2 MhLJ 6 ; 2020 4 MLJ 85 ; 2021 1 MPLJ 475 ; 2020 149 RD 562 ; 2020 4 Scale 251 ; 2020 4 SCC 659 ; 2020 2 Supreme 716 ; 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 164

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. ABDUL NAZEER, HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.
C. DODDANARAYANA REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
C. JAYARAMA REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2165 OF 2009
Decided on : 14-02-2020

IMPORTANT POINT
A concurrent finding of fact is binding unless it is pointed out that it was recorded de hors pleadings or it was based on no evidence or based on misreading of material on records and documents.

(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 74 and 76 – Public document – Entry in School Register may not be a public document and must be proved in accordance with law – Public document in terms of Section 74 of Evidence Act, 1872 includes documents forming records of official bodies or tribunals – Section 76 of Act gives a right to any person to demand a copy of a public document on payment of a fee together with certificate written at foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document – Certified copies may be produced in proof of contents of public documents or parts of public documents of which they purport to be copies. (Para 14)

(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 100 – Second appeal – Suit for partition and separate possession – Plaintiff claimed that he was minor at the time of death of his father in year 1963 and that he continued as a member of joint Hindu family in joint possession and enjoyment of property of joint Hindu family – Plaintiff asserted that his signatures were obtained on a few documents and that he was not aware of contents of same nor did he execute any document thereof and understood what they were – Plaintiff has not produced any official from school to prove that such certificate was from record of school nor did he examine Head Master who has issued such certificate – Plaintiff has also not examined his mother who was available at the time when evidence of plaintiff was being recorded – High Court gravely erred in law in interfering in findings of fact recorded by First Appellate Court – Onus was on plaintiff to prove that he was a minor at the time of execution of release deed – He failed to prove his date of birth and his suit is to be dismissed and was rightly dismissed by trial court and First Appellate Court – High Court in Second Appeal could not reappreciate evidence to take a different view that such document is proved – Illegality on account of alleged improper consideration does not give rise to a substantial question of law – Findings of fact cannot be interfered with in a second appeal unless findings are perverse – High Court could not have interfered with findings of fact – Appeal allowed and suit dismissed. (Paras 2, 5, 19, 20, 23, 30 and 31)

Facts of the case:

Defendants are in appeal aggrieved against an order passed by High Court of Karnataka on 14th June, 2005 whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff - C. Jayarama Reddy was allowed by setting aside the concurrent findings of facts recorded by two courts below.

Findings of the Court:

High Court erred in law in interfering with the finding of fact recorded by the trial court as affirmed by First Appellate Court. The findings of fact cannot be interfered with in a second appeal unless, the findings are perverse. High Court could not have interfered with the findings of the fact.

Result : Appeal allowed.

Act Referred :
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : O.6 R.4, S.100
EVIDENCE ACT : S.35, S.74, S.76, S.32(5), S.50, S.51, S.60, S.61, S.59
LIMITATION ACT : Art.44

Cases Referred:
Nawab Sadiq Ali Khan & Ors. Vs. Jai Kishori & Ors., AIR 1928 PC 152 – Distinguished [Para 9] - Referred
Wali Singh vs. Sohan Singh, AIR 1954 SC 263 – Distinguished [Para 10] - Referred
Birad Mal Singhvi vs. Anand Purohit, 1988 Supp SCC 604 – Distinguished [Para 12] - Referred
Madan Mohan Singh & Ors. vs. Rajni Kant & Anr., (2010) 9 SCC 209 – Distinguished [Para 12] - Referred
Madhegowda (Dead) by LRs vs. Ankegowda (Dead) by LRs & Ors., (2002) 1 SCC 178 – Distinguished [Para 13] - Referred
Ram Suresh Singh vs. Prabhat Singh & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 681 – Relied [Para 19] - Referred
Karnataka Board of Wakf vs. Anjuman-E-Ismail Madris-Un-Niswan, (1999) 6 SCC 343 – Relied [Para 25] - Referred
Kondiba Dagadu Kadam vs. Savitkibai Sopan Gujar & Ors., (1999) 3 SCC 722 – Relied [Para 26] - Referred
Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari, (2001) 3 SCC 179 – Relied [Para 27] - Referred
State of Rajasthan vs. Shiv Dayal, (2019) 8 SCC 637 – Relied [Para 28] - Referred

Advocates Appeared :
For the Appellant : P. R. Ramasesh, Abdul Azeem Kalebudde, Advocates
For the Respondent: S.J.Amith, Vipin Gupta, Advocate, Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, Likhi Chand Bonsle, Venkata Subramonium T.R., Advocates

JUDGMENT :

Hemant Gupta, J.

The defendants are in appeal aggrieved against an order passed by the High Court of Karnataka on 14th June, 2005 whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff - C. Jayarama Reddy was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document with a free account to LawCanvas