when the courts below have recorded concurrent findings, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C., the High Court erred in re-appreciating the evidence and in interfering with the findings.-2015 S.C.-MSKLAWREPORTS


To the south of the  property  sold  to
the respondents-defendants, 'A' schedule property as shown in the  suit  was
earmarked  for  the  purpose  of   road.   However,  the  City   Development
Authority did not approve the same and hence no road was  formed.   
Case  of
the appellants-plaintiffs is that since no road was formed,  they  continued
to be the owners of the 'A' schedule property  and  they  are  the  absolute
owners of the same.
B' schedule property is the portion of  'A'  schedule
property measuring 21/2'  x  80'  which  according  to  the  plaintiffs  was
encroached by the defendants. 
From the evidence of DW-1-President and  Councilor  of  the
Municipality  and  DW-4,  Assistant  Commissioner,  courts  below   recorded
findings  that the 'A' schedule property  is   still  in  the  name  of  the
plaintiffs and that there was no acquisition  and  payment  of  compensation
made to the first plaintiff in respect of  the disputed property.

In
the first appellate  court,  the  interlocutory  application  filed  by  the
plaintiffs, one Sri Basavaraj, Assistant Engineer, Public  Works  Department
was appointed as the Court Commissioner, who  had  inspected  the  spot  and
filed the report and also the sketch.  Based on  the  report  of  the  Court
Commissioner and Ex. P5 and other evidence, the first  appellate  court  has
recorded the findings of fact that defendants have encroached upon suit  'A'
schedule property and the same read as under:-

 "...No doubt shall arise to hold that, it is proved that, defendant  Nos.  2
and 3 have encroached upon 781/4'  x  2'  in schedule  'A'  property,  which
is also corroborated by Ex-P5.  It is also the first rough sketch  submitted
by the Court Commissioner.  But though the extent of the  encroachment  area
reported therein does not absolutely tally with the extent of  'B'  schedule
property, encroachment of 781/4' x 2' by defendant Nos. 2 and 3  out  of  it
is proved...."

 The  courts
below have recorded  concurrent findings that  'A' schedule   property   was
earmarked for road and that no road was  formed as the  City   Development
Authority did not approve the same and  continued
to be the owners of the 'A' schedule property  and  they  are  the  absolute
owners of the same. Thus the   plaintiffs  have
proved  their ownership to 'A'  schedule property and  that  the  defendants
have failed to prove that it is a road  having the  nearest  approach.   
 It
was submitted that when the courts below have recorded concurrent  findings,
in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100  C.P.C.,  the  High  Court
erred in re-appreciating the evidence and in interfering with the  findings.

 In the light of  concurrent  findings
of fact, no substantial questions of law arose in the High Court  and  there
was no substantial ground for re-appreciation of evidence.   While  so,  the
High Court proceeded to observe that the first plaintiff has  earmarked  the
'A' schedule property for road and that she  could  not  have  full  fledged
right and on that premise proceeded to hold that declaration to  plaintiffs'
right cannot be granted.  In exercise  of  jurisdiction  under  Section  100
C.P.C., concurrent findings of fact  cannot  be  upset  by  the  High  Court
unless  the  findings  so  recorded  are  shown  to  be  perverse.   In  our
considered view,  the High Court did not keep in view  that  the  concurrent
findings recorded by the courts below,  are based on  oral  and  documentary
evidence and the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained. 2015 S.C.-MSKLAWREPORTS

Popular posts from this blog

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it
Read more

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Law  :- Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. Sub  :- Quash the criminal proceedings Offence  :-Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 Summary : -  The investigation revealed that clandestinely question paper Part-B has been removed from the exam hall and it was passed on to Accused No.1 for eventually facilitating in malpractice. However, the police after investigation, filed the charge-sheet.   The petitioner (A-2) along with A-1 is sought to be proceeded against under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (Act for short).     Section 5 of the Act reads as under: Prevention of leakage by person entrusted with examination works: No person who is entrusted with any work pertaining to a public examination shall, except where he is permitted by virtue of his duties so to do, directly or indirectly divulge or cause to be divulged or make known to any o
Read more

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. "Order 38, Rule 7 C.P.C. provides that the attachment under Order 38, Rule 5 shall be made in the manner provided for the attachment of property in execution of a decree. It is trite, the attachment envisaged under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC is an attachment before judgment. The restriction found by the learned Single Judge that under Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. The attachment of debts due to the defendant from third party could be attached before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS
Read more