Supreme Court of India
RAMAKRISHNA RAO (DEAD) BY LR.versusRAI MURARI
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 76
- Decided
- 21 January 2008
- Disposal
- Case Allowed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The High Court's direction to refund money is indefensible and is set aside because it was based on findings not supported by the record.
Summary
The appellant filed a suit for a permanent injunction to prevent the respondent from interfering with the appellant's peaceful possession of the suit land. The trial court dismissed the suit, the first appellate court allowed it, and the Karnataka High Court dismissed the second appeal, directing the appellant to refund Rs.5,000 (later Rs.32,000) allegedly paid by the respondent's wife under a purported agreement. The Supreme Court held that the High Court based its direction on a premise that the agreement was valid, a finding that the first appellate court had expressly rejected. Consequently, the direction to refund the money was deemed indefensible and was set aside. The appeals were allowed, restoring the appellant's position in the injunction suit.
Issues considered
- What was the correct basis for the High Court's direction to refund money to the respondent?
- Did the first appellate court find the alleged agreement between the appellant and the respondent's wife to be valid?
- Can a permanent injunction suit be dismissed on the ground of an unestablished agreement?
Legislation cited
Subjects
permanent injunctionCivil Procedure Codeproperty possessionagreement validityrefund of moneyappellate jurisdictionHigh Court error
Judgment
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 981
A RAMAKRISHNA RAO (DEAD) BY LR. ,.
v.
RAI MURARI
(Civil Appeal Nos. 454-455 of 2002)
JANUARY 21, 2008
B
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.)
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: *
Permanent injunction -Appellant filing suit for permanent
"
c injunction restraining respondent from interfering with peaceful
possession over suit property - Dismissed by trial Court -
Reversed by first appellate Court - Affirmed by High Court
with direction to appellant to refund certain amount as paid by
respondent's wife allegedly in terms of an agreement -
D Correctness of - Held: Incorrect - High Court proceeded on
totally untenable premises in recording finding contrary to -~
material on record - Direction clearly indefensible - Hence, i.
set aside.
Appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction for
E
direction to defendant-respondent from interfering with
the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit
property. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. The
appeal filed thereagainst was allowed by the first appellate
court. Appeal filed thereagainst was dismissed by the High
F Court directing appellants for payment of certain amount _;.+
to the respondent. Revision Petition was dismissed by
the High Court. Hence the present appeals.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
G HELD: 1.1 The High Court proceeded on the basis
as if the suit for injunction was filed on the ground that ..,
plaintiff had entered into an agreement with defendant's
wife. On the basis of the agreement the defendant's wife
claimed to have been put in possession of the land and
H 981
RAMAKRISHNA RAO (DEAD) BY LR. v. RAI MURARI 982
[PASAYAT, J.]
~ the right to property cannot be taken away by the plaintiff A
by way of injunction or otherwise. This shows complete
non application of mind by the High Court. This is not the
case of the plaintiff in the suit but as a matter of fact it was
the defendant's case. To add to the vulnerability, the High
Court found that the agreement was found to be valid by B
the first appellate court and, therefore, it was the duty of
o\ the plaintiff to return the amount with interest at the rate
~ of 12% per annum. Even on a deep scanning of the first
appellate court's order it is noticed that there was no such
finding recorded. It is clear from the order of the first c
appellate Court that the stand of the plaintiff about the
alleged existence of an agreement for sale was not
established. (Para - 3) [983-E, F, G, H; 984-A] ·
1.2 Since the High Court proceeded on totally
untenable premises and recorded findings which are D
~,
__ contrary to materials on record and findings recorded, the
direction for refund of money is clearly indefensible and
is set aside. (Para - 5) [985-B, C]
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.454-
455 of 2002. E
From the final Judgment and Order dated 13.02.1998 and
7.3.2001 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular
Second Appeal No. 183 of 1994 and R.P. No. 856 of 2000
~- respectively. F
S.N. Bhat, N.P.S. Panwar and D.P. Chaturvedi for the
Appellant.
M.M. Kashyap for the Respondent.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J._1. Challenge in these appeals is G
~ to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High
Court who while dismissing the Second appeal filed by the
respondent has given certain directions which according to the
appellant could not have been given in the absence of any
finding. H
983 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 1 S.C.R.
A 2. A suit for permanent injunction was filed by the appellant, "t
with the prayer to direct the defendant, respondent herein from
interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the
suit schedule land. The trial court dismissed the suit but the first
appellate court allowed the appeal. The High Court in the Second
B appeal as noted above dismissed the same but directed
payment of certain amounts by the appellants to the respondent.
The directions in this regard read as follows: ),
"Now the defendant's grievance is that the plaintiff "
could not have the benefit of the property as well as money
c paid by the defendant's wife on 19.6.1983. In equity and
in lavy, inasmuch as agreement is found to be valid by the
first Appellate Court, it is the duty of the plaintiff to return
the money of Rs.5,000/- together with the interest at 12%
per annum. Such amount shall be charged in the property.
D The plaintiff is directed to pay the same within a period of
six months and the decree of injunction shall come into x
; ..
operation only after payment is made. Subject to the above
direction, the second appeal is dismissed."
3. Subsequently, the figure of Rs.5,000/- was substituted
E
with a figure of Rs.32,000/-. The High Court proceeded on the
basis as if the suit for injunction was on the ground that plaintiff
had entered into an agreement with defendant's wife on
19.6.1983. It was further observed that on the basis of the
agreement the defendant's wife claimed to have been put in
F possession of the land and the right to property cannot be taken ,;t
away by the plaintiff by way of injunction or otherwise. To say the
least, this shows complete non application of mind. This is not
the case of the plaintiff in the suit but as a matter of fact it was
the defendant's case. To add to the vulnerability, the High Court
G found that the agreement was found to be valid by the first
y
appellate court and, therefore, it was the duty of the plaintiff to
return the amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
Even on a deep scanning of the first appellate court's order it is
noticed that there was no such finding recorded. On the contrary,
H in paragraphs 19 to 21 of the first appellate coU11's order, it is
RAMAKRISHNA RAO (DEAD) BY LR. v. RAI MURARI 984
[PASAYAT, J.]
clear that the first appellate Court found that the stand of the A
+- plaintiff about the alleged existence of an agreement for sale
was not established. It is relevant to take note of what has been
stated in the aforesaid paragraphs:
"19. In this connection it was urged on behalf of the plaintiff
that the document is a cooked up one as the wife of the B
defendant was not in a position to afford such a huge
+ amount. It is an admitted fact that there has been a loan
• transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant and
for recovery of the said amount a suit has been filed which
c
l\'
has been decreed by the court of Munsif. The suit had
been filed in O.S.No. 118/84. According to the plaintiff a
sum of Rs.11,500/- was paid in august, 1983 and for non
payment of balance amountO.S.No.118/84 has been filed
against him. It was urged that the defendant was not in a
position to pay the said amount and it was quite impossible D
to enter into an agreement for purchase of the land at the
"'
-~ rate of Rs.2,000/- per acre. It is stated by D.W.2 that his
wife who was the owner of the land at Hokrani village has
been sold by her, but neither the wife of the defendant has
been examined before the court nor any other material is E
produced to show that she was in a position to pay the
amount so as to purchase the suit land along with non-suit
land.
20. It can also be seen here that the plaintiff has denied
,._
the execution of the document and has refused the said F
'"""·
transaction. To enforce such transaction no action has
been taken by the wife of the defendant for specific
performance of agreement of sale against the plaintiff
though it has come to the knowledge that the said
agreement has been refuted by the plaintiff. G
--·{
21. The perusal of the document at Ex.D-2 itself goes to
"
show that Sy.No.715 appearing in the document at two
places has been over written. It has also been mentioned
therein that in the month of May of next year by taking the
H
985 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.
A balance amount, the document has to be taken. In spite of t-
lapse of time as contended so far no action has been
taken against the plaintiff, so the right of equity accrued to
the wife of the defendant and the defendant who claims
through her, has been defeated by lapse of time."
B 4. No one appears for the respondent.
5. A review petition was filed highlighting these aspects i
by the appellants, but the same came to be rejected by the High 4
Court. Since the High Court proceeded on totally untenable
c premises and recorded findings which are contrary to materials
on record and findings recorded, the direction for refund of I-
money is clearly indefensibl,e and is set aside.
6. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent with no
order as to costs.
D
S.K.S. Appeals allowed.
..
A
y
'
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "permanent injunction"Sign in to search