Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2023 (3) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 1414 - SUPREME COURTMaintainability of suit - illegal dispossession - Decree of perpetual injunction against the defendants 1 to 3 directing the defendants to restore the possession of the schedule premises to the plaintiff - non-interference in the plaintiffs’ lawful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property in any manner whatsoever. Suit is bad for mis-joinder or nonjoinder of necessary parties? - Court fee paid on the plaint is insufficient? - Entitlement for possession of the suit schedule premises. HELD THAT:- There are no hesitation to hold that the original defendants failed to raise sufficient and appropriate pleadings in the written statement that they have better right for possession of the suit properties. No amount of proof offered without appropriate pleadings would have any relevance. The Courts below have rightly relied on the evidence of PW-5 to hold forceful dispossession of the defendants from ‘B’ schedule property. Nothing is on record to uphold the said finding. Whether the impugned judgment is inflicted with perversity or any patent illegality warranting interference in invocation of the power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The sound reasons given by the courts below persuade us to answer it in the negative. After carefully considering the evidence on record the Trial Court arrived at the conclusion that the respondent herein/the plaintiff is entitled to get back the possession of suit schedule property from which he was dispossessed and even after careful consideration of the additional evidence recorded and transmitted to the High Court by the trial court and considering all contentions and aspects with reference to plethora of decisions the High Court only confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court. As observed earlier, when the concurrent findings of the courts below are the outcome of the rightful consideration and appreciation of materials on record they do not call for any interference. Taking into account the fact that the suit was indisputably filed based on prior permission and illegal dispossession we do not find any reason to place Exhibit D-2 sale deed executed (even if by the owners) in favour of the deceased second appellant to displace the concurrent findings of the courts below on the entitlement of the respondent herein/the plaintiff for a decree as granted by the trial court and confirmed the High Court. Appeal dismissed.
|