Point of law - The general rule is that High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of the Courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well recognized exceptions are where (i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. When we refer to 'decision based on no evidence', it not only refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding.

JUDGMENT:

The defendant in O.S.No.24 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the then Subordinate Judge (Senior Civil Judge), Srikalahasti, presented this second appeal. He died and appellants 2 and 3 being his legal representatives are brought on record, who are pursuing this appeal.

2. The respondents were the plaintiffs in the above suit. The second respondent died during pendency of this second appeal. The first respondent being her sole legal representative is already on record.

3. The respondents laid the suit for declaration of their right and title to the plaint schedule properties and to restrain the deceased first appellant by means of permanent injunction from in any way interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of these properties.

4. The plaint schedule properties are agricultural lands located in Nagulapuram village of Chittoor district and described in the plaint schedule as follows:

They shall be referred to hereinafter as ‘the suit lands’.

5. Sri T.A.Kuppireddy and Smt.Sanjeevamma are the parents of the second respondent. The suit lands and other extents of about Ac.60.00 wet and dry lands at Nagulapuram belonged to Sri T.A.Kuppi Reddy. He died in May 1956 testate, directing devolution of his estate by means of a registered Will dated 22.03.1956. His entire properties were divided into three parts shown as schedules ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ in this registered Will. ‘A’ schedule property therein was bequeathed in favour of Smt.Sanjeevamma his wife with life interest and thereafter to confer upon the second respondent. ‘B’ schedule property therein was given away to the second respondent with absolute rights. Sri Kuppi Reddy retained ‘C’ schedule properties therein for life and thereafter to devolve in favour of his wife after whose lifetime, they were directed to be conferred to this second respondent. Sri Kuppi Reddy was apparently philanthropic and who has constructed a Chowltry and Bhajan Mandir in their village, in the sites belonged to him.

6. After the death of Sri Kuppi Reddy, Smt.Sanjeevamma and the second respondent began to enjoy these properties. Smt.Sanjeevamma had sold away some of them that included an extent of Ac.8.37 cents of wet land in favour of Sri R.Chengal Reddy under Ex.A16 sale deed dated 22.03.1982 for valuable consideration.

7. Items 1 to 3 of the suit lands belonged to Smt.Sanjeevamma and whereas items 4 and 5 belonged to the second respondent. Smt.Sanjeevamma suffered from paralysis in the year 1983, had treatment in Christian Medical College Hospital, Vellore in the state of Tamilnadu. She died on 29.08.1985.

8. The deceased first appellant was a resident of Nagulapuram. He claimed relationship to the second respondent, which is disputed by the respondents. He had agricultural lands neighbouring the suit lands. Initially, the suit was instituted by the first respondent alone and later on the second respondent was added as a party (second plaintiff) to it.

9. The case of the respondents is that Smt.Sanjeevamma had executed a settlement deed on 31.05.1985 (Ex.A2) in favour of the first respondent giving away items 1 to 3 of the suit lands, which he continued to be in possession and enjoyment. Further contention of the respondents is that the second respondent settled items 4 and 5 of the suit lands under a registered deed of settlement (Ex.A3) dated 29.05.1985 in favour of the first respondent, which he continued to be in possession and enjoyment since then. Contending that the deceased first appellant in order to knock away the suit lands taking advantage of young age of the first respondent and since his father was employed