IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 3408 OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.23575 of 2011)
T. Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead)
Thr. LRs. & Anr. ….Appellant(s)
N. Madhava Rao & Ors. ….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
- Leave granted.
- This appeal is filed against the final judgment
and order dated 23.11.2010 passed by the High
Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad
in Second Appeal No.1036 of 2006 whereby the
High Court allowed the second appeal filed by
respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein.
- A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the
disposal of this appeal, which involves a short point.
- The appellants herein are defendant Nos.1 and
2, respondent Nos.13 herein are the plaintiffs and
respondent Nos.59 are the defendant Nos.48 of
the civil suit out of which this appeal arises.
- Respondent Nos.13 (plaintiffs) filed a civil suit
against the appellants (defendant Nos.1 and 2) and
respondent Nos.5 to 9 (defendant Nos.4 to 8)
seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants
restraining them from interfering in his peaceful
possession over the suit properties.
- The appellants (defendant Nos.1 and 2)
contested the suit whereas the remaining
defendants (4 to 8) remained ex parte. The Trial
Court by judgment/decree dated 20.08.2001
dismissed the suit. Respondent Nos.13 (plaintiffs)
felt aggrieved and filed first appeal before the
Additional District & Sessions Judge(Fast Track
Court), Visakhapatnam. By judgment dated
07.11.2005, the First Appellate Court dismissed the
appeal and upheld the judgment/decree of the Trial
- The plaintiffs (respondent Nos.13) felt
aggrieved and filed second appeal in the High Court
of Andhra Pradesh. By impugned order, the High
Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment
impugned therein and decreed the plaintiffs’ suit by
passing a decree for perpetual injunction against
the defendants in relation to the suit property,
which has given rise to filing of the present appeal
by way of special leave in this Court by defendant
Nos.1 and 2.
- So, the short question, which arises for
consideration in this appeal, is whether the High
Court was justified in allowing the plaintiffs’ second
appeal and thereby was justified in decreeing their
suit by granting a decree of perpetual injunction
against defendant Nos.1 and 2 in relation to the suit
- Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
are constrained to allow the appeal and while
setting aside the impugned order restore the
judgment/decree of the First Appellate Court and
the Trial Court which resulted in dismissal of the
- In our considered opinion, the High Court
erred in interfering in the concurrent findings of
facts of the two Courts below, which dismissed the
- In our view, the Trial Court and the First
Appellate Court on appreciating the evidence of the
parties had rightly come to a conclusion that the
plaintiffs failed to prove the ingredients necessary
for the grant of perpetual injunction.
- When the two Courts below have recorded
concurrent findings of fact against the plaintiffs,
which are based on appreciation of facts and
evidence, in our view, such findings being
concurrent in nature are binding on the High Court.
It is only when such findings are found to be
against any provision of law or against the pleading
or evidence or are found to be wholly perverse, a
case for interference may call for by the High Court
in its second appellate jurisdiction.
- Such was not the case made out in the High
Court. It is for this reason, we are of the view that
the High Court should not have interfered in the
findings of the two Courts below and instead, the
findings should have been upheld by the High
- Coming now to the facts of the case, we find
that the plaintiffs (respondent Nos.13) have no case
much less prima facie for grant of perpetual
- The suit property is a part of big chunk of land
owned by several brothers who inherited the same
after the death of their father, namely, Poornayya.
- The appellants (defendant Nos.1 and 2) are the
purchasers of the suit land from one of the cosharers (one of the brothers) by a registered sale
deed. Respondent Nos.13 (plaintiffs) are the sons of
another cosharer (brother).
- In our view, even assuming that the plaintiffs
claimed to be in possession of the suit property
(which the two Courts below did not find in their
favour) for claiming injunction, yet they were not
entitled to claim injunction against the other cosharers over the suit property. It is a settled
principle of law that the possession of one cosharer
is possession of all cosharers, it cannot be adverse
to them, unless there is a denial of their right to
their knowledge by the person in possession, and
exclusion and ouster following thereon for the
statutory period. [See Mohammad Baqar & Ors. vs.
NaimunNisa Bibi & Ors.(AIR 1956 SC 548)]
- So far as the claim of the plaintiffs as being
in exclusive possession to the exclusion of others
was concerned, the same was held not proved by
the two Courts below.
- Defendant Nos.1 and 2 (appellants herein)
being the purchasers of the suit property from one
of the cosharers stepped into the shoes of their
vendor (cosharer) and, therefore, had a right to
defend their title and possession against the other
- In the light of the aforesaid admitted position
arising in the case, in our view, the plaintiffs had no
case to claim injunction against defendant Nos.1
and 2 in relation to the suit property. The two
Courts below, therefore, rightly declined it and we
affirm the same.
- As noted above, the High Court failed to
appreciate the factual and legal controversy in its
proper perspective and, therefore, erred in
interfering in the concurrent findings of the fact
without recording a finding as to why the
concurrent findings of fact are bad in law and why it
requires interference in its second appellate
- In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow
the appeal, set aside the impugned order and
restore the judgment/decree of the Trial Court/First
Appellate Court which dismissed the suit filed by
respondent Nos.13 (Plaintiffs).
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] ……………………………………….J.
April 05, 2019