2019 INSC 0416
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL  APPEAL No.4282  OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.31350 of 2009)
Hirabai (D) Thr. L.Rs. & Ors. ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Ramniwas Bansilal Lakhotiya (D) 
by L.Rs. & Ors.               ….Respondent(s)
                 
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.  
1. Leave granted.
2. This   appeal   is  filed  against   the  final   judgment
and   order   dated   19.12.2008   passed   by   the   High
Court   of   Judicature   at   Bombay,   Bench   at
1

Aurangabad   in   Second   Appeal   No.177   of   1988
whereby   the   High   Court   dismissed   the   second
appeal filed by the appellants herein and upheld the
judgment   of   the   Trial   Court   and   first   Appellate
Court.
3. A   few   facts   need   mention   hereinbelow   for   the
disposal of this appeal.
4. This appeal is filed by the legal representatives
of two original plaintiffs, who died after filing of the
civil suit.
5. The original two plaintiffs were the real sisters
of   defendant   No.3   (respondent   No.3   herein   ­
Shankarlal)  and their father was late Motilal. 
6. There   is   a   building   named   “Moti   Building”   in
the   city   of   Jalna,   which   consists   of   four   houses,
each   bearing   separate   number,   viz.,3484/3534,
3485/3535,   3486/3536   and   3487/3537
(hereinafter referred to as “the suit property”).
2

7. Defendant No.3/respondent No.3 sold the suit
property to one Bansilal Shivlal by a registered sale
deed   dated   07.10.1965.     On   the   death   of   Bansilal,
defendant   Nos.1   and   2/respondent   Nos.1   and   2
herein   inherited   the   suit   property   as   heirs   of
Bansilal   and   thus   became   the   owners   of   the   suit
property. 
8. Since   some   dispute   arose   between   defendant
Nos.1   and   2   with   defendant   No.3   in   relation   to   the
suit   property,   defendant   Nos.1   and   2/respondent
Nos.1   and   2   herein   filed   a   civil   suit   in   the   year
1971,   being   CS   No.48/1971   against   defendant
No.3/respondent   No.3   Shankarlal   and   others
(tenants   in   the   suit   property).     The   suit   was   for   a
declaration   of   title   over   the   suit   property   and   for
permanent   injunction   in   relation   to   the   suit
property. The suit was contested by defendant No.3.
3

9. By   judgment/decree   dated   31.01.1975,   the
civil   suit   (No.48/1971)   was   decreed   in   favour   of
defendant   Nos.1   and   2/respondent   Nos.1   and   2.
The Trial Court   inter alia   held that defendant Nos.1
and   2   are   the   owners   of   the   suit   property.     This
decree attained finality.
10. Thereafter, a civil suit, out of which this appeal
arises,   was   filed   against   the   defendants
(respondents herein).  The suit was for a declaration
that   the   decree   dated   31.01.1975   passed   in   Civil
Suit No.48/1971 is not binding on the two plaintiffs
and   that   the   sale   deed   dated   07.10.1965   executed
by   defendant   No.3/respondent   No.3   in   favour   of
defendant Nos.1 and 2/respondent  Nos. 1 and 2 in
relation   to   the   suit   property   is   also   not   binding   on
the two plaintiffs. 
11. The   suit   was   founded   inter   alia   on   the
allegations   that   the   suit   property   was   an   ancestral
4

property   of   the   family   in   which   the   two   plaintiffs   ­
who   are   the   sisters   of   defendant   No.3/respondent
No.3   have   an   equal   share   along   with   defendant
No.3.     The   plaintiffs   alleged   that   since   the   suit
property   was   sold   by   defendant   No.3/respondent
No.3   without   their   knowledge,   authority   and
consent, the sale deed dated 07.10.1965 is null and
void to the extent of plaintiffs’ share.   The plaintiffs
also   alleged   that   since   both   the   plaintiffs   were   not
parties   to   Civil   Suit   No.48/1971,   the   decree   dated
31.01.1975   passed   in   the   said   suit   is   neither
binding on them nor such decree affects their right,
title and  interest in the suit property. 
12. During   pendency   of   the   civil   suit,   wife,   sons
and   daughters   of   defendant   No.3/respondent   No.3
also   joined     the   civil   suit,   either   as   plaintiffs   or   as
defendants,   some   since   inception   and   others   at   a
5

later   stage.     Defendant   No.3,   his   wife,   sons   and
daughters supported the plaintiffs’ case. 
13. The   suit   was   contested   only   by   defendant
Nos.1   and   2,   who   were   the   purchasers   of   the   suit
property from defendant No.3.
14. According   to   defendant   Nos.1   and   2,   first,   the
suit   was   barred   by   limitation   because   it   was   filed
after   three   years   from   the   date   of   decree   dated
31.01.1975;  Second,  it was  bad in  law because the
plaintiffs   failed   to   seek   partition   in   relation   to   the
entire properties owned by the family; Third, it was
a   collusive   suit   filed   at   the   instance   of   defendant
No.3/respondent   No.3   to   avoid   execution   of   the
decree   against   him;   Fourth,   the   decree   dated
31.01.1975   passed   in   Civil   Suit   No.48/1971   was
also   binding   on   the   two   plaintiffs   in   the   light   of
categorical finding recorded by the Civil Court in its
judgment   dated  31.01.1975;  Fifth,   in   any   case,   the
6

two   plaintiffs   had   no   right,   title   and   interest   in   the
suit property; Sixth,  even  otherwise, the sale of  the
suit   property   having   been   made   by   a   Karta   of   the
family,   i.e.,   defendant   No.3   for   the   benefit   of   the
family   and   for   legal   necessity,   it   is   binding   on   the
two   plaintiffs   including   all   members   of   the   family;
Seventh, a suit to challenge the decree passed by a
competent Civil Court is not maintainable.
15. The   Trial   Court,   by   judgment/decree   dated
16.10.1981, dismissed the suit and answered all the
issues   against   the   plaintiffs   by   upholding   the
objections   raised   by   defendant   Nos.1   and   2.     The
plaintiffs   felt   aggrieved   and   filed   first   appeal   before
the   2 nd
  Additional   District   Judge.     By   judgment
dated   09.05.1988,   the   first   Appellate   Court
dismissed   the   appeal   which   gave   rise   to   filing   of
second   appeal   by   the   plaintiffs   in   the   High   Court.
By   impugned   order,   the   High   Court   dismissed   the
7

second   appeal,   which   has   given   rise   to   filing   of   the
present   appeal   by   way   of   special   leave   by   the
plaintiffs in this Court.
16. So,   the   short   question,   which   arises   for
consideration   in   this   appeal,   is   whether   the   High
Court   was   justified   in   dismissing   plaintiffs’   second
appeal   and   thereby   was   justified   in   upholding   the
judgment   of   the   Trial   Court   and   first   Appellate
Court which resulted in dismissing the suit.
17. Heard   Mr.   Vinay   Navare,   learned   senior
counsel   for   the   appellants   and   Mr.   Nishant
Ramakantrao   Katneshwarkar,   learned   counsel   for
the respondents.
18. Having   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
find no merit in this appeal.
19. In   our   view,   all   the   three   Courts   (Civil   Judge,
first Appellate Court and the High Court) were right
8

in   their   reasoning   and   the   conclusion   on   all   the
factual   and   legal   issues   raised   by   defendant   Nos.1
and   2   and   we   find   no   good   ground   to   differ   with
their reasoning and the conclusion.
20. First,   the   findings   impugned   in   the   appeal
being   concurrent   in   nature,   were   not   only   binding
on the High Court while deciding the second appeal
and   were   rightly   held   to   be   so   binding   but   such
findings are binding on this Court too; Second, even
otherwise,   all   the   findings   have   been   recorded   on
proper   appreciation   of   facts   and   law   and   hence   do
not   call   for   any   interference   in   this   appeal   as
detailed  infra .
21. Third,   the   suit   in   question   was   apparently   a
collusive   suit   filed   at   the   behest   of   defendant   No.3
through   his   two   sisters   and   family   members   to
avoid   execution   of   a   valid   decree   dated   31.01.1975
9

passed   by   the   competent   Civil   Court   against
defendant No.3 in relation to the suit property. 
22. Fourth, in the light of findings recorded by the
Trial   Court   in   the   previous   suit   in   Para   18,   the
present suit was rightly dismissed by all the Courts
below. It is apposite to quote the finding of the Trial
Court recorded in Para 18 which reads as under: 
“ 18.   The   sale   deed   has   been   executed   by
Shankarlal,   who   is   admittedly   the   Karta   of
the   family.     According   to   the   own   statement
of   defendant   No.1,   he   was   in   need   of   money
for  paying his  dues to different  persons.     He,
therefore,   sold   the   house   in   favour   of
Bansilal.     Defendant   No.1   cannot   raise   the
objection   that,   other   heirs   of   Motilal   should
be   impleaded   as   defendants.     It   is   for   the
other   heirs,   if   any,   of   late   Motilal   to   take
recourse   to   proper   remedy   in   case   they   fell
that, the alienation of the suit house was not
in   the   interest   of   the   family.     Other   heirs   of
Motilal are not necessary parties to this suit.
Issue   No.8   is   decided   against   the
defendants.”
23. The   aforesaid   finding,   in   our   view,   not   only
binds   defendant   No.3   but   also   binds   the   two
plaintiffs being the members of the same family.
10

24. Fifth, once it was held that the sale of the suit
property   was   made   by   the   Karta   ­   defendant   No.3
and   it  was  made  for  legal  necessity  and  the   benefit
of   the   family,   the   same   was   binding   on   all   the
members of the family including the plaintiffs.
25. Sixth,   the   plaintiffs   failed   to   plead   and   prove
that   the   sale   in   question   was   not   for   the   benefit   of
family or that there was no legal necessity for such
sale   or   as   to   on   what   basis,   they   claimed   share   in
the   suit   property.     On   the   other   hand,   defendant
Nos.1 and 2 were able to prove that the sale was for
the legal necessity and benefit of the family.
26. Seventh,   the   plaintiffs   themselves   admitted   in
their   evidence   that   they   filed   a   civil   suit   at   the
instigation   of   defendant   No.3   ­   their   real   brother.
This clearly  indicates that the suit was not filed for
a  bona fide  cause but it was a collusive suit filed by
the   plaintiffs   to   overcome   the   valid   decree   obtained
11

by   the   defendant   Nos.1   and   2   against   defendant
No.3 and to save defendant No.3 from its execution.
27. In   the   light   of   the   foregoing
discussion/reasons,   we   find   no   good   ground   to
interfere   in  the   impugned   order,   which  is   based  on
proper   appreciation   of   facts   and   law   governing   the
issues.
28. The appeal, is therefore, found to  be devoid  of
any merit.  It is accordingly dismissed.     
                                      .………...................................J.
                                    [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]     
                                
     … ...……..................................J.
             [DINESH MAHESHWARI]
New Delhi;
April 25, 2019
12