Summary
The High Court exceeded second-appeal jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence and reversing concurrent findings without a genuine substantial question of law. The plaintiff’s registered deeds did not defeat the defendants’ case that the earlier sale was nominal and did not bind their predecessor. A proved Palupatti recording an admitted oral family partition did not require registration on these facts and could also corroborate the arrangement. Dismissal of the title and injunction suit was restored.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could reverse the concurrent factual findings in second appeal.
- Whether a stranger to a sale deed needed independent cancellation proceedings to dispute its effect.
- Whether the Palupatti recording the family partition could be considered without registration.
Held
- A substantial question of law is indispensable to Section 100 jurisdiction. The question framed here was not such a question; the High Court impermissibly substituted its appreciation for reasoned concurrent findings. (¶ 7.1–8)
- Krishnappa had not signed the earlier sale deed, which was not acted upon and could not bind him on these facts. The evidence supported the concurrent rejection of the plaintiff’s claimed title. (¶¶ 9.1, 9.6)
- A defendant who is a stranger to the deed may plead that it is void, fictitious, collusive, nominal or not binding to defeat a declaration suit. An independent cancellation suit or counterclaim was not necessary here. (¶ 9.2)
- The proved Palupatti listed property already partitioned in a family arrangement and did not require registration on these facts. The plaintiff admitted the oral partition and receipt of his share; the document could also corroborate the arrangement and conduct, with family-settlement estoppel applicable. (¶ 9.3–9.5)
Result
High Court judgment set aside. Trial court and first appellate court judgments dismissing the plaintiff’s suit restored; suit dismissed. No costs.