Summary
The Supreme Court restored dismissal of a property-title suit after finding that the High Court had perversely inferred oral partition from deeds concerning other land. It ignored joint pattas, admissions, the unproved will and other concurrent findings, and exceeded the scope of second appeal.
Issues
- Whether documents concerning other properties established oral partition of the suit survey number.
- Whether the High Court properly reversed concurrent dismissal without addressing material evidence and the unproved basis of title.
Provisions considered
- Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The High Court’s second-appeal interference did not conform to its limited scope: it ignored material evidence and other findings while drawing a perverse partition inference from unrelated documents. (¶¶ 10, 12, 13, 14)
- Section 68, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The courts below had found the will underlying the plaintiffs’ title claim unproved in accordance with the statutory requirements; that deficiency remained material and was not addressed by the High Court’s partition finding. (¶¶ 6, 12, 13)
Held
- The sale deeds relied on to infer oral partition concerned different properties, and did not establish partition of the suit survey number. The trial and first appellate courts had considered them and rejected their sufficiency. The High Court’s contrary inference from boundary descriptions alone ignored the relevant evidentiary setting. (¶¶ 8, 10, 12, 13)
- Joint pattas and the plaintiffs’ admissions showed an unpartitioned holding with other persons. The will forming the pleaded basis of title remained unproved, and the High Court did not deal with the concurrent findings, including non-joinder. Its selective appreciation of evidence and resulting reversal were perverse and outside Section 100. (¶¶ 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14)
Result
Appeal allowed. The High Court judgment was set aside, the trial and first appellate judgments confirmed, and the plaintiffs’ suit dismissed. No order as to costs.