High Court’s Decision reversed in a Property dispute: High court Misappropriated the facts says Supreme court
Case Title: Rajendhiran v. Muthaiammal @ Muthayee & Ors.
Case No.: S.L.P.(C) No.15541 of 2023
Decided On: 03.01.2024
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Facts of the Case:
An appeal has been filed in this case against the ruling of the High Court that granted the plaintiff’s claim to declare a sale deed invalid. Through a will and a purported oral partition, the plaintiff asserted ownership. Citing an unsubstantiated will and a lack of proof supporting the oral partition, the Trial Court and First Appellate Court rejected the lawsuit. The ruling was reversed by the High Court on the basis of unrelated sale deeds. The plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed, and the Supreme Court upheld this decision after finding the High Court’s decision to be erroneous.
Legal Provisions
Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which describes the conditions for a second appeal to the High Court, is one of the legal provisions in issue in this case. Thecase revolves around the High Court’s ruling which is called into doubt due to the insufficiency of two sale deeds, and the inability to show oral partition. It also include non-joinder of relevant parties and the absence of evidence supporting the claimed will.
Issues
The issue is on the insufficiency of documented evidence to demonstrate the division and the inability to prove an oral partition. Also the non-joinder of required parties, the absence of evidence supporting the purported will, and inconsistencies in the property ownership record. The judgement made by the High Court, is contested on the grounds that it was deemed irrational and did not follow Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Courts analysis and decision
The Supreme court reversed the decision made by the High Court. It concluded that the HC erred in finding the oral partition based only on sale deeds and a mortgage deed, relying on papers unconnected to the contested survey number. The plaintiffs’ complaint was rejected by the court due to its emphasis on the lack of proof for the asserted oral partition. It notably emphasised the unsubstantiated will and the lack of suit property in the plaintiffs’ name in documents. The court maintained the rulings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, ruling that the High Court’s conclusion was based on a misappreciation of the facts and was not legally sound.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aastha Ganesh Tiwari