M. Sivadasan (Dead) through L.Rs. and Ors. Vs. A. Soudamini (Dead) through L.Rs. and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (28 Aug 2023)

Appellants must show that exceptional and special circumstances exist to reverse the findings, even after, leave is granted

MANU/SC/0938/2023

Property

The Appellants had filed a suit for partition and mesne profit way back in the year 1988, before the Court of Principal Munsif, claiming ancestral rights over the property. The Trial Court dismissed the suit of the Plaintiffs/Appellants vide its Order and judgment on the ground that, the land along with the house sought to be partitioned is an agricultural land on which the Plaintiffs/Appellants, cannot claim any right. This finding of the Trial Court was upheld by the First Appellate Court, and finally by the High Court by the impugned judgment in second appeal.

As per the law as it existed at their relevant time, the property which was an agricultural property would devolve upon the male child and daughters would get only a limited right to maintenance till, they were married and the widow would be entitled to maintenance from the income from the property till her death or remarriage. As per the family Settlement Deed dated 12th March, 1938 which was relied upon by both the parties, the property in dispute was specifically allotted to Sami Vaidyar and his only son Sukumaran. Therefore, the widow of Sami Vaidyar i.e., Choyichi will not have any right over the property. The findings of all the courts below were that Choyichi was never in possession of the property and therefore she would not get the right, as claimed by her Under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

The land in question undoubtedly has coconut trees on it, most of them are very old but fruit bearing, and moreover in revenue records, the land is described as "theaattam" i.e., "garden". This would mean that, the land in question may be put for agricultural use. Theoretically, it is possible that a land which is recorded as "theaattam" may not be actually put for agricultural use. All the same, in the present case, the overwhelming evidence which has been duly appreciated by the three Courts below clearly prove that the land was indeed an agricultural land. Therefore, there is no reason to take a different view at this stage.

This case is here before present Court in a Special Leave Petition filed Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. It is true that leave has been granted in this case. Nevertheless, the settled legal position remains that even after leave is granted and appeal is admitted, the Appellants must show that exceptional and special circumstances exist to reverse the findings, or grave injustice will be done if the decision under challenge is not interfered with.

Admittedly the Defendants have all along been in possession of the property. The finding of adverse possession in favour of the Defendants by the Trial Court, was never challenged by the Plaintiffs/Appellants before the First Appellate Court.

The concurrent findings on facts by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have been reaffirmed in second appeal by the High Court, yet by and large the entire submissions of the Appellants is nothing but a persuasion before this Court for reappraisal of the case on facts.The judgment of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court, affirmed by the High Court in second appeal is upheld. Appeal dismissed.

Tags : PARTITION SUIT RIGHT SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES