1. Suit for maintenance — Amendment seeking share in estate — Decree passed and restored by Supreme Court. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2003 Supreme(SC) 1564
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.N. Khare, CJI., S.B. Sinha, Ar. Lakshmanan, JJ.
Surinder Singh and another - Appellants
Versus
S. Teja Singh Manshia and others - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 325 of 1998
Decided On : 14-01-2003
Important Points
Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the identity of disputed properties, especially when supported by a party's own admissions in the plaint, are binding and not subject to interference by the appellate court.
Subject
Civil Law - Property Law
Headnote
(A) Civil Procedure - Binding nature of prior decrees - Findings of fact - Identity of properties - Where a party admits in the plaint that the properties in a current suit were the same as those in a previous suit, and the trial and appellate courts have recorded findings of fact to that effect, such findings are not liable to be interfered with. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents filed a suit for a share in properties, which was eventually decreed by the apex court. The appellants subsequently filed a suit for declaration of ownership and for a declaration that the previous decree was not binding on them, contending that the properties in dispute in the earlier suit were different from those in the current suit. The trial court and the High Court recorded findings that the properties were the same, except for specific items mentioned in the schedule.
Findings of Court:
The court noted that in the plaint of the subsequent suit, the appellants explicitly admitted that the previous suit included the properties currently in dispute. No evidence was led to prove that the properties were different. Since the trial court and the High Court both recorded a finding of fact that the properties were the same, this finding is not liable to be interfered with.
Issues: Whether the decree passed in a previous suit regarding specific properties is binding on the plaintiffs in a subsequent suit when they claim the properties are different.
Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the High Court regarding the identity of properties, particularly when supported by admissions made by the party in their own pleadings, are binding and should not be disturbed by the higher court.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Facts of the case:
The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents filed a suit for a share in properties, which was eventually decreed by the apex court. The appellants subsequently filed a suit for declaration of ownership and for a declaration that the previous decree was not binding on them, contending that the properties in dispute in the earlier suit were different from those in the current suit. The trial court and the High Court recorded findings that the properties were the same, except for specific items mentioned in the schedule.
Findings of Court:
The court noted that in the plaint of the subsequent suit, the appellants explicitly admitted that the previous suit included the properties currently in dispute. No evidence was led to prove that the properties were different. Since the trial court and the High Court both recorded a finding of fact that the properties were the same, this finding is not liable to be interfered with.
Issues: Whether the decree passed in a previous suit regarding specific properties is binding on the plaintiffs in a subsequent suit when they claim the properties are different.
Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the High Court regarding the identity of properties, particularly when supported by admissions made by the party in their own pleadings, are binding and should not be disturbed by the higher court.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellants contended properties in earlier suit were different from those in subsequent suit. (Para 4 )
3. The plaint admitted properties were same; finding of fact not liable to be interfered with. (Para 5 )
4. Finding of fact on identity of properties based on admission in plaint cannot be reopened in appeal. (Para 5 )
5. Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs. (Para 5 )
6. Can a finding of fact based on an admission in the plaint be interfered with in appeal?
No, a finding of fact based on an admission in the plaint that the properties were the same is not liable to be interfered with. (Para 5 )
ORDER :
V.N. Khare, CJI. - On 22-5-1956, Smt. Gulab Kaur, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant-respondents herein filed a suit for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1000 per month from half-share in the properties left by her husband. Subsequently, the plaint was amended with the leave of the court and the amended relief was for granting decree in regard to half of the share in the estate left by her husband. The suit was decreed on 29-6-1964. However, on appeal by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, the appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the decree of the trial court. Aggrieved, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents filed an appeal before the Supreme Court by way of a special leave petition.
2. While these proceedings were pending, the appellants herein along with Gopinder Singh, brother of Appellant 1 filed Suit No. 237 of 1966 against Jaswant Kaur and Surjit Inder Singh for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the possession of the properties mentioned in the schedule. However, on 25-10-1976?, this Court allowed the appeal preferred by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. Consequently, the decree of the trial court was restored.
3. After the decree of the trial court was restored by this Court, the appellants herein brought a suit (Suit No. 40 of 1979) for declaration that they are the owners in possession over the properties mentioned in the schedule annexed with the plaint and for a declaration to the effect that the Supreme Court judgment dated 25-10-1976, Jaswant Kaur v. Amrit Kaur, (1977) 1 SCC 369, passed in CA No. 1360 of 1975 arising out of the decree passed in Suit No. 67 of 1960 is not binding on the plaintiffs. The trial court partly decreed the suit on 3-12-1986 in respect of properties mentioned at Sl. Nos. D and F. The rest of the relief was refused. Aggrieved, the appellants herein preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The High Court partly allowed the appeal by decreeing the suit also in respect of the property mentioned at Sl. No. E. However, the Division Bench affirmed the other part of the decree. It is against the said judgment the appellants are in appeal before us.
4. Shri C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants urged that the properties in dispute in Suit No. 67 of 1960 being other than the properties involved in Suit No. 40 of 1979, the High Court committed an error in holding that the decree passed by this Court is binding. We do not find any merit in the submission.
5. In Para 1 of the plaint in Civil Suit No. 40 of 1979, the appellants stated thus:
“That the predecessor-in-interest of the present defendants had filed Civil Suit No. 67 of 1960 against Sardar Surjit Inder Singh of Sangrur, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, Sangrur (Punjab) for declaration of her half-share in certain properties including the properties in the present suit.”
This paragraph unmistakably admits that the properties involved in Civil Suit No. 40 of 1979 were the same as the properties in dispute in the earlier Civil Suit No. 67 of 1960 filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants. Further, nowhere in the plaint, it has been asserted or any evidence led to that effect that the properties in Suit No. 67 of 1960 were different from the properties involved in Civil Suit No. 40 of 1979 filed by the appellants. The trial court, as well as the High Court, both have recorded a finding that except in regard to the properties mentioned at Sl. Nos. D, E and F, the properties involved in the suit are the same as involved in Civil Suit No. 67 of 1960. This being a finding of fact, is not liable to be interfered with. We find no merit in the appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
6. After the judgment was dictated, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants urged that liberty may be given to the appellant
