LEGAL ISSUE: Can a High Court overturn a lower appellate court’s factual findings in a property partition suit?
CASE TYPE: Civil – Property Partition
Case Name: Azgar Barid (D) By Lrs. vs. Mazambi @ Pyaremabi And Others
[Judgment Date]: 21 February 2022
Date of the Judgment: 21 February 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 160
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and B.R. Gavai, J.
The Supreme Court of India, in this civil appeal, addressed a dispute over a family property partition. The core issue was whether the High Court of Karnataka was correct in overturning the First Appellate Court’s decision. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, delivered a unanimous judgment, upholding the High Court’s decision.
Case Background
The case revolves around a suit for partition of properties filed by Mazambi @ Pyaremabi and others (plaintiffs/respondents) against Azgar Barid (defendant/appellant) and others. The plaintiffs claimed their shares in the properties of Mohiyuddin Pasha. The dispute arose from differing claims about the family relationships and the validity of a Mehar Deed (a deed of gift in Muslim law).
The plaintiffs argued that Mohiyuddin Pasha had two wives: Noorbi (deceased in 1944) and Mazambi @ Pyarembi. They claimed that plaintiffs 1 and 2 were related to Noorbi, while plaintiffs 3 to 8 were children of Mazambi @ Pyarembi. The defendant, Azgar Barid, contested the marriage of Mohiyuddin Pasha with Mazambi @ Pyarembi and the legitimacy of plaintiffs 4 to 8. He also claimed that the properties were not part of Mohiyuddin Pasha’s estate due to a Mehar Deed executed in favor of Noorbi.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1936 | Mehar Deed executed by Mohiyuddin Pasha in favor of his first wife, Noorbi, registered on 30th July 1936. |
| 1944 | Death of Noorbi, first wife of Mohiyuddin Pasha. |
| 1945 | Death of Rahaman Barid, son of Mohiyuddin Pasha and Noorbi. |
| 1961 | Earlier suit for partition (O.S. No. 514/1961) where Mohiyuddin Pasha and Azgar Barid claimed the Mehar Deed was nominal. |
| 1964 | Death of Mohiyuddin Pasha. |
| 1977 | Suit for partition (O.S. No. 388/77) filed by plaintiffs before the Prl. Munshiff at Kolar. |
| 11th September 1987 | Trial court partially decrees the suit, granting shares to plaintiffs 2 and 3 but denying shares to plaintiffs 4 to 8. |
| 1988 | Regular Appeal No. 60 of 1988 filed by defendant No.1 before the Prl. Civil Judge at Kolar. |
| 23rd November 1994 | First Appellate Court allows the appeal, setting aside the trial court’s decree. |
| 1995 | Regular Second Appeal No. 160 of 1995 filed before the Karnataka High Court. |
| 18th March 1998 | High Court sets aside the First Appellate Court’s judgment and restores the trial court’s decree. |
| 17th August 2004 | Supreme Court sets aside the High Court’s judgment and remands the matter back to the High Court for fresh disposal. |
| 17th March 2009 | High Court, after remand, holds that all suit schedule properties are to be divided amongst Azgar Barid and plaintiffs 3 to 8. |
| 21st February 2022 | Supreme Court dismisses the appeal filed by Azgar Barid, upholding the High Court’s decision. |
Course of Proceedings
The suit for partition was initially filed in the Prl. Munshiff at Kolar (trial court). The trial court partly decreed the suit, granting shares to plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3, but denied any share to plaintiff Nos. 4 to 8. Aggrieved by this, the defendant No. 1 filed an appeal before the Prl. Civil Judge at Kolar (First Appellate Court). The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial court’s judgment.
The plaintiffs then filed a second appeal before the Karnataka High Court. The High Court initially set aside the First Appellate Court’s decision and restored the trial court’s decree. However, the Supreme Court, in an earlier appeal, found that the High Court had not framed questions of law as required by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and remanded the matter back to the High Court.
On remand, the High Court framed specific questions of law and, after hearing the matter afresh, held that all the suit properties were to be divided amongst Azgar Barid and plaintiffs 3 to 8. The High Court also held that plaintiffs 1 and 2 were not entitled to any share, as their predecessor had predeceased the propositus (Mohiyuddin Pasha). This decision of the High Court was challenged in the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case primarily involves the interpretation of evidence in a suit for partition. The relevant provision of law is Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which deals with second appeals to the High Court. This section allows the High Court to interfere with the findings of the lower appellate court only if there is a substantial question of law involved.
The Supreme Court also referred to Order 41 Rule 4 and Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Order 41 Rule 4 allows an appellate court to reverse a decree even in favor of non-appealing plaintiffs. Order 41 Rule 33 empowers the appellate court to do complete justice between the parties, even if not all affected parties have appealed.
The court also discussed the concept of perversity in factual findings, stating that a perverse finding of fact can give rise to a substantial question of law, justifying the High Court’s intervention under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments (Azgar Barid):
- The trial court had only decreed the suit in favor of plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3. Plaintiff Nos. 4 to 8 were not granted any share.
- Plaintiff Nos. 4 to 8 did not challenge the trial court’s decision in appeal. Therefore, the second appeal by them was not tenable.
- The questions framed by the High Court were not questions of law but questions of fact, pertaining to the appreciation of evidence.
- The First Appellate Court’s judgment was well-reasoned and should have been maintained.
Respondents’ Arguments (Mazambi @ Pyaremabi and Others):
- The trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence.
- The First Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s findings based on conjectures and surmises.
- The High Court was correct in interfering with the First Appellate Court’s judgment.
- In a partition suit, all parties stand on the same pedestal, and every party is both a plaintiff and a defendant.
The appellant argued that the High Court’s questions were not questions of law but questions of fact, challenging the High Court’s jurisdiction to interfere with the First Appellate Court’s findings. The respondents contended that the First Appellate Court had reversed the trial court’s findings based on conjectures and surmises, justifying the High Court’s interference.
The respondents argued that in a partition suit, all parties are both plaintiffs and defendants, and thus, the High Court could grant relief to non-appealing plaintiffs. The appellant argued that the High Court could not grant relief to the non-appealing plaintiffs.
Submissions Table:
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellant) | Sub-Submissions (Respondents) |
|---|---|---|
| Maintainability of Second Appeal |
|
|
| Nature of Questions Framed by High Court |
|
|
| Correctness of First Appellate Court’s Judgment |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court did not frame any specific issues in this case. However, the High Court framed the following questions of law:
- Whether the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are entitled to share in the suit schedule properties, particularly when Rehaman Barid through whom plaintiffs 1 and 2 claim partition predeceased his father – Mohiyuddin Pasha – the propositus?
- Whether the first Appellate Court is justified in negativing the case of the plaintiffs 3 to 8 for partition and separate possession after having found that the documents Exs.P-1 to P-7 disclose the paternity of plaintiffs 4 to 8?
- Whether the first Appellate Court is justified in dismissing the suit filed by plaintiffs 3 to 8 mainly on the ground that the Nikhanama evidencing the marriage of plaintiff No.3 with Mohiyuddin Pasha is not produced?
- Whether the properties found in Mehar Deed Ex.D-1 executed by Mohiyuddin Pasha in favour of first wife Noorabi are liable to be divided among the parties to the present suit?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court:
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Entitlement of Plaintiffs 1 and 2 | Not entitled to a share | Rehaman Barid, through whom they claimed, predeceased Mohiyuddin Pasha. |
| Justification of First Appellate Court in denying share to plaintiffs 3 to 8 | First Appellate Court was not justified | Documents and oral evidence supported the paternity of plaintiffs 4 to 8. |
| Justification of First Appellate Court in dismissing suit for non-production of Nikhanama | First Appellate Court was not justified | Oral and documentary evidence proved the marriage of plaintiff No.3 with Mohiyuddin Pasha. |
| Liability of Mehar Deed properties for division | Properties are liable to be divided | Mehar Deed was nominal and not acted upon, based on admissions in earlier suit. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered several authorities while deciding the case:
Cases:
| Authority | Court | How the authority was considered |
|---|---|---|
| Bhagwan Swaroop and Others v. Mool Chand and Others [(1983) 2 SCC 132] | Supreme Court of India | Affirmed that in a partition suit, the position of plaintiff and defendant is interchangeable. |
| Dr. P. Nalla Thampy Thera v. B.L. Shanker and Others [1984 (Supp) SCC 631] | Supreme Court of India | Affirmed that in a partition suit, the position of plaintiff and defendant is interchangeable. |
| Chandramohan Ramchandra Patil and Others v. Bapu Koyappa Patil (Dead) Through LRs and Others [(2003) 3 SCC 552] | Supreme Court of India | Affirmed that an appellate court can grant relief to non-appealing plaintiffs and make an adverse order against all defendants. |
| Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur v. Punjab State Electricity Board and Others [(2010) 13 SCC 216] | Supreme Court of India | Explained that a second appeal can be entertained on a question of fact if the findings of fact are perverse. |
| Illoth Valappil Ambunhi (D) By LRs. v. Kunhambu Karanavan [2019 SCC OnLine SC 1336] | Supreme Court of India | Stated that perversity in arriving at a factual finding gives rise to a substantial question of law. |
| K.N. Nagarajappa and Others v. H. Narasimha Reddy [2021 SCC OnLine SC 694] | Supreme Court of India | Reiterated the High Court’s jurisdiction to appreciate factual issues under Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. |
| Narayan Sitaramji Badwaik (Dead) Through Lrs. v. Bisaram [2021 SCC OnLine SC 319] | Supreme Court of India | Explained the circumstances under which the High Court can decide an issue of fact. |
Legal Provisions:
- Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Deals with second appeals to the High Court on a substantial question of law.
- Order 41 Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Allows appellate courts to reverse a decree in favor of non-appealing plaintiffs.
- Order 41 Rule 33, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Empowers appellate courts to do complete justice between parties.
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that the second appeal by plaintiffs 4 to 8 was not maintainable. | Rejected. The Court held that in a partition suit, all parties stand on the same footing and the High Court can grant relief to non-appealing plaintiffs. |
| Appellant’s submission that the questions framed by the High Court were not questions of law. | Rejected. The Court held that the High Court was justified in interfering with the perverse findings of the First Appellate Court. |
| Appellant’s submission that the First Appellate Court’s judgment was well-reasoned and should be maintained. | Rejected. The Court held that the First Appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence correctly and its findings were based on conjectures and surmises. |
| Respondents’ submission that the trial court had rightly appreciated the evidence. | Accepted. The Court found that the trial court’s findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence. |
| Respondents’ submission that the First Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s findings on conjectures. | Accepted. The Court found the First Appellate Court’s findings to be perverse and not based on proper appreciation of evidence. |
| Respondents’ submission that the High Court was correct in interfering with the First Appellate Court’s judgment. | Accepted. The Court upheld the High Court’s decision to interfere with the First Appellate Court’s judgment. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court relied on Bhagwan Swaroop and Others v. Mool Chand and Others [(1983) 2 SCC 132] and Dr. P. Nalla Thampy Thera v. B.L. Shanker and Others [1984 (Supp) SCC 631]* to hold that in a partition suit, the position of the plaintiff and defendant can be interchangeable.
- The Court cited Chandramohan Ramchandra Patil and Others v. Bapu Koyappa Patil (Dead) Through LRs and Others [(2003) 3 SCC 552]* to affirm that the appellate court can grant relief even to non-appealing plaintiffs.
- The Court referred to Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur v. Punjab State Electricity Board and Others [(2010) 13 SCC 216]* to explain that a second appeal can be entertained on a question of fact if the findings are perverse.
- The Court also relied on Illoth Valappil Ambunhi (D) By LRs. v. Kunhambu Karanavan [2019 SCC OnLine SC 1336]* to reiterate that perversity in factual findings gives rise to a substantial question of law.
- The Court cited K.N. Nagarajappa and Others v. H. Narasimha Reddy [2021 SCC OnLine SC 694]* and Narayan Sitaramji Badwaik (Dead) Through Lrs. v. Bisaram [2021 SCC OnLine SC 319]* to explain the High Court’s jurisdiction to appreciate factual issues.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the First Appellate Court had reversed the trial court’s findings based on conjectures and surmises, without proper appreciation of the evidence. The Court emphasized that the trial court’s findings were based on a correct appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence. The High Court was justified in interfering with the perverse findings of the First Appellate Court. The Supreme Court also noted that the First Appellate Court had failed to consider the voluminous evidence presented before the trial court.
The Court also considered the fact that the appellant himself had relied on the judgment in the earlier suit (O.S. No. 514/1961) where he and Mohiyuddin Pasha had admitted that the Mehar Deed was nominal. This admission was crucial in determining that the properties were part of Mohiyuddin Pasha’s estate and liable for partition.
The Court also noted that the High Court had framed the questions of law correctly after the remand, and its decision was based on a proper analysis of the evidence.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Importance of Trial Court’s Findings | 30% |
| Perversity of First Appellate Court’s Findings | 40% |
| Admission of Appellant in Earlier Suit | 20% |
| High Court’s Correct Framing of Issues and Analysis | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 70% |
| Law | 30% |
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in interfering with the findings of the First Appellate Court. The Court observed:
“It could thus clearly be seen that in the present case, the First Appellate Court had reversed the findings recorded by the trial court which were based upon correct appreciation of evidence.”
The Court further noted:
“The High Court has given sound and cogent reasons as to why an interference with the findings of the First Appellate Court was required. We also find that the First Appellate Court has failed to take into consideration the voluminous oral as well as documentary evidence, on the basis of which the trial court had recorded its findings.”
The Court concluded:
“As such, we are of the considered view that the perverse approach of the First Appellate Court in arriving at the findings would give rise to a substantial question of law, thereby justifying the High Court to interfere with the same.”
There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The bench was unanimous in its decision.
Key Takeaways
- In a partition suit, all parties stand on the same footing, and an appellate court can grant relief to non-appealing plaintiffs.
- A High Court can interfere with the factual findings of a lower appellate court if those findings are perverse or based on conjectures and surmises.
- The High Court can interfere if the lower appellate court has failed to appreciate the evidence correctly.
- Admissions made by parties in earlier suits can be used against them in subsequent proceedings.
Directions
No specific directions were issued by the Supreme Court in this case. The appeal was dismissed, and the High Court’s order was upheld.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a High Court can interfere with the factual findings of a lower appellate court if those findings are perverse or based on conjectures and surmises. This case reiterates the principles established in previous judgments regarding the scope of second appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. There is no change in the previous position of law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision. The Court found that the First Appellate Court had reversed the trial court’s findings without proper appreciation of evidence and that the High Court was justified in interfering with such perverse findings. The judgment reinforces the principle that appellate courts should not disturb factual findings of lower courts unless there is a clear error or perversity.
Category
Parent Category: Civil Law
Child Category: Property Partition
Child Category: Second Appeal
Parent Category: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Child Category: Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Child Category: Order 41 Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Child Category: Order 41 Rule 33, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
FAQ
Q: What is a partition suit?
A: A partition suit is a legal action to divide property among co-owners, ensuring each receives their rightful share.
Q: What is a second appeal in the context of civil cases?
A: A second appeal is an appeal to the High Court against the judgment of a lower appellate court. It is usually based on a substantial question of law.
Q: What does it mean for a finding to be “perverse”?
A: A perverse finding is one that is against the weight of evidence, illogical, or based on conjectures and surmises.
Q: Can a High Court interfere with the factual findings of a lower court?
A: Yes, a High Court can interfere with the factual findings of a lower appellate court if the findings are perverse or based on incorrect appreciation of evidence.
Q: What is the significance of this judgment?
A: This judgment clarifies the circumstances under which a High Court can interfere with the factual findings of a lower appellate court in a partition suit. It also reaffirms that all parties in a partition suit stand on the same footing.
Source: Azgar Barid vs. Mazambi