2021 INSC 0510
                                               NON­REPORTABLE
 
   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
    CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2066 OF 2012
  
Balasubramanian & Anr.                .…Appellant(s)
Versus
M. Arockiasamy (dead) Through Lrs.    ….  Respondent(s)
    J U D G M E N T
A.S. Bopanna,J.       
              
1 .     The   appellant   is   before   this   Court   in   this   appeal,
assailing   the   judgment   dated   30.10.2009   passed   by   the
High Court of Madras, Madurai Bench in S.A. No. 1303 of
1994.   The   appellant   herein   is   the   plaintiff   in   the   suit
while the respondents are the legal representatives of the
deceased   first   defendant   before   the   Trial   Court.   For   the
sake   of   convenience   and   clarity   the   parties   will   be
 
Page  1  of  22

referred to in the rank assigned to them before the court
of   first   instance   namely,   the   Court   of   District   Munsif,
Palani.
2 .   The factual matrix in brief is that the plaintiff filed
the   suit   bearing   O.S   No.   769/1987   seeking   the   relief   of
perpetual   injunction   to   restrain   the   defendants   from
interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the   plaint  schedule   property,   as  claimed  by   the   plaintiff.
The   defendant   No.2   did   not   respond   to   the   summons
issued in the suit and therefore, was placed ex­parte. The
defendant   No.1   appeared   before   the   trial   court   and
contested  the  suit.   The  case  of   the  plaintiff   was  that   the
plaint schedule property belonged to the plaintiff who has
been enjoying the same for a period of 40 years by paying
kist.   The   property   belonging   to   the   defendant   No.1   is
adjacent   to   the   suit   property.   The   same   was   sold   by   the
defendant   No.1   to   one   Parvatham   Ammal   wife   of
Ponnusamy   in   the   year   1984.   The   properties   were   sub­
divided after the purchase and were assigned the Survey
No.1073/3V, and 1073/3B. The property bearing Survey
 
Page  2  of  22

No.1073/13A   belonged   to   Parvatham   Ammal.   The   said
Smt.   Parvatham   Ammal   alienated   the   property   to   one
Subban   Asari.   Hence,   it   was   contended   by   the   plaintiff
that the defendant No. 1 has no manner of right over the
suit   schedule   property.   The   plaintiff   alleged   that   the
defendant No.1 approached the plaintiff and demanded to
sell the property to him but the plaintiff refused to do so,
due   to   which   the   defendants   attempted   to   trespass   into
the   suit   property.   The   plaintiff   having   resisted   the   same
claimed   that   the   suit   is   filed   in   that   view   seeking
injunction.
3 .  The defendant No.1 in order to resist the suit, filed
a   detailed   written   statement   disputing   the   right   claimed
over   the   suit   schedule   property   by   the   plaintiff.   It   was
contended   that   the   suit   schedule   property   neither
belonged   to   the   plaintiff   nor   was   the   plaintiff   in
possession   of   the   same.   On   the   other   hand,   it   was
contended   that   the   defendant   was   in   possession   of   the
property.   It   was   averred   that   the   suit   property   and
certain other properties originally belonged to Ponnimalai
 
Page  3  of  22

Chetti, the father of Konar Chettiar. He purchased 1/3rd
share   in   Survey   No.1073/3   and   1/5th   share   in   Survey
No.1073/13. Though only the said extent was purchased,
the   entire   extent   was   in   his   possession   and   enjoyment.
The said Konar Chettiar handed over the entire extent to
Marimuthu Kudumban son of Sivanandi Kudumban who
was   the   grandfather   of   defendant   No.1.   Subsequently,
0.33   cents   of   land   in   Survey   No.1073/3A   was   acquired
for   the   formation   of   Kodaikanal   road   and   the   remaining
extent of land available in the said Survey Number is only
46   cents.   Marimuthu   Kudumban   disposed   0.35   cents   of
land in Survey No.1073/13 from out of the extent of 1.76
acre to one Arockiammal i.e., the mother of the defendant
No.1   under   a   sale   deed   dated   10.08.1937   and   delivered
the   possession.   The   remaining   1.41   acres   of   land   was
also enjoyed by Marimuthu Kudumban. Subsequently, he
died   leaving   behind   him   the   mother   of   defendant   no.   1
namely   Arockiammal  as   the  only   heir.   Arockiammal  was
thus in possession and enjoyment of 0.79 cents in Survey
No.1073/3V   and   1.41   acre   in   Survey   No.1072/13A
 
Page  4  of  22

alongwith   the   0.35   cents   of   land   purchased   by
Arockiammal.   The   defendant   No.1   was   enjoying   the
properties through the guardian since the defendant No.1
was   3   years   old   when   Arockiammal   and   her   husband
died. 
4 .    It   was   further   averred   that   the   defendant   No.1
sold 0.31 cents of land in survey No.1073/13 from out of
1.76   acres   of   land   to   Parvatham   Ammal   on   24.11.1984.
The remaining 1.41 acres of land has been in possession
and   enjoyment   of   defendant   No.1.   After   the   purchase   of
land   Parvatham   Ammal   obtained   patta   for   Survey
No.1073/13 to the extent of 55 cents and sub­divided in
1073/13A.   The   Revenue   authorities   issued   patta   for   the
extent of 55 cents and on 19.12.1987 Parvatham Ammal
sold 55 cents of land to one Subban Asari. The defendant
alleged   that   Subban   Asari   in   order   to   grab   the   suit
property is litigating in the instant suit in the name of the
plaintiff. The defendant No.1 disputed the payment of kist
by   the   plaintiff   which   has   been   done   with   the   ulterior
motive   for   the   suit.   The   defendant   No.1   claimed   in   the
 
Page  5  of  22

written   statement   that   the   defendant   No.1   is   residing   in
the thatched house in the suit property and is engaged in
agricultural   work.   The   defendant   No.1   therefore,   sought
for dismissal of the suit.
5 .    Based on the rival pleadings, the trial court framed
two issues and an additional issue casting burden on the
plaintiff   to   prove   whether   the   plaintiff   was   in   exclusive
possession and enjoyment of the suit property  and as to
whether  the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction
as prayed for. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and
relied upon the documents at Exhibit A1 to A16. No other
witness   was   examined   on   behalf   of   the   plaintiff.   The
defendant examined two witnesses as DW1 and DW2 and
documents at Exhibits B1 to B14 were marked. 
6 .    The   learned   District   Munsif   (Trial   Court)   having
taken   note   of   the   rival   contentions   and   the   evidence
tendered   by   the   parties   recorded   a   categorical   finding
that   the   plaintiff   has   failed   to   prove   possession   over   the
suit   schedule   property   and   taking   note   of   certain
admissions made by the plaintiff during the course of the
 
Page  6  of  22

cross­examination   and   the   contention   put­forth   by   the
defendant, was also of the view that though the claim  of
the plaintiff is denied by the defendant No.1 the plaintiff
has   not   sought   the   relief  of   declaration   and   in   that   light
the   only   question   relating   to   possession   was   answered
against   the   plaintiff.   The   suit   of   the   plaintiff   was
accordingly   dismissed   with   costs   through   its   judgment
dated 13.04.1993.
7 .  The plaintiff being aggrieved by the same preferred
a   Regular   First   Appeal   under   Section   96   of   the   Civil
Procedure Code before the District Judge, Dindigul (First
Appellate   Court)   in   A.S   No.51   of   1993.   The   learned
District   Judge   framed   two   points   for   consideration,
essentially   to   the   effect   as   to   whether   the   plaintiff   is
entitled   to   the   relief   of   permanent   injunction.   While
taking note of the evidence tendered by the parties before
the   trial   court,   the   learned   District   Judge   has   placed
much   reliance   on   the   documents   at   Exhibit   A5   series,
namely,   the   kist   receipts   and   based   mainly   on   the   same
has   arrived   at   the   conclusion   that   the   claim   of   the
 
Page  7  of  22

plaintiff   that   he   is   in   possession   of   the   suit   schedule
property   is   to   be   accepted   since   he   was   paying   kist   in
respect of the property. 
8 . The   defendant   No.1   therefore,   claiming   to   be
aggrieved   by   the   judgment   dated   18.03.1994   passed   by
the   learned   District   Judge   in   A.S.   No.51/1993   preferred
the   Second   Appeal   under   Section   100   of   the   Civil
Procedure   Code   before   the   Madras   High   Court,   Madurai
Bench   in   S.A.   No.1303   of   1994.   The   High   court   while
admitting   the   Second   Appeal   had   framed   a   substantial
question of law, as to whether the suit without the prayer
for declaration is maintainable when especially the title of
the plaintiff is disputed. Thereupon having  taken note of
the rival  contentions urged by the  parties had arrived at
the   conclusion   that   the   substantial   question   of   law
framed   has   substance   and   therefore,   set   aside   the
judgment   dated   18.03.1984   passed   in   A.S.   No.51/1993
by   the   learned   District   Judge   Dindigul.   The   plaintiff
therefore,   claiming   to   be   aggrieved   has   filed   the   instant
appeal. 
 
Page  8  of  22

9 .     In   the   above   background   we   have   heard   Mr.
Jayanth   Muth   Raj,   learned   senior   counsel   appearing   for
the   plaintiff­appellant,   Mr.   Sriram   P.,   learned   counsel
appearing   for   the   respondents   and   perused   the   appeal
papers.
10 .     The   reference   made   hereinabove   to   the   rival
pleadings would delineate the nature of contentions that
were put­forth by the parties in support of the suit and to
oppose the same. The manner in which it is dealt by the
various   fora   in   the   hierarchy   will   have   to   rest   on   the
claim   that   was   originally   put­forth   in   the   plaint   and   the
manner in which the claim was sought to be established
with   the   evidence   tendered,   either   documentary   or   oral.
The   learned   senior   counsel   for   the   appellant   has
strenuously   contended   that   the   parameter   for
interference   by   the   High   Court   in   the   Second   Appeal
under   Section   100   of   the   Civil   Procedure   Code   is   well
established and the High Court cannot travel beyond the
same and advert to re­appreciate the evidence on factual
aspects.   It   is   contended   that   though   a   substantial
 
Page  9  of  22

question of law was framed by the High Court, the same
has   not   been   answered.   It   is   his   contention   that   even
otherwise   the   substantial   question   of   law   as   framed   by
the High Court is not sustainable inasmuch as the law is
well settled that in a suit for bare injunction the plaintiff
need   not   always   seek   for   declaratory   relief   and   if   this
aspect   of   the   matter   is   kept   in   view   there   was   no   other
substantial   question   of   law   subsisting   and   the   second
appeal ought to have been dismissed. He contended that
in such event when the lower appellate court which is the
last   court   for   appreciation   of   facts   has   recorded   its
finding of fact, the same cannot be interfered by the High
Court on re­appreciation of the evidence. In that view it is
contended that the judgment passed by the High court is
liable   to   be   set   aside   and   the   judgment   of   the   lower
appellate court is to be restored.
11 .   The   learned   counsel   for   the   defendant   No.1
however,   sought   to   sustain   the   judgment   passed   by   the
High Court. It is pointed out that the suit was instituted
by   the   plaintiff   as   far   back   as   in   the   year   1987   and   the
 
Page  10  of  22

trial   court   through   its   judgment   dated   13.04.1993   had
referred to the entire evidence and arrived at a conclusion
that the prayer made in the plaint is liable to be rejected.
Though the lower appellate court has set aside the same,
the judgment of the lower appellate court would indicate
that the evidence has not been properly appreciated and,
in   such   circumstance,   the   High   Court   as   far   back   as  on
30.10.2009   has   set   aside   the   judgment   of   the   lower
appellate court and in such event, at this distant point in
time it would not be appropriate to set aside the order of
the   High   Court   more   particularly   when   the   defendant
No.1 has been in possession, prior to and subsequent to
the   suit.   The   learned   counsel   therefore,   sought   for
dismissal of this appeal.
12 .    In   the   light   of   the   rival   contentions,   before
adverting to the fact situation herein it is to be stated at
the outset that on the general principles of law laid down
in the decisions referred to by the learned senior counsel
for the appellant, there can be no quarrel whatsoever. In
the   case   of   Gajaraba   Bhikhubha   Vadher   &   Ors.
 
Page  11  of  22

versus   Sumara   Umar   Amad   (dead)   thr.   Lrs.   &   Ors.
(2020)   11   SCC   114     the   fact   situation   arising   therein
was   referred   to   and   having   taken   note   that   five
substantial questions of law had been framed, this Court
had   arrived   at   the   conclusion   that   such   substantial
questions   of   law  which  arose   therein   had   not   been  dealt
with appropriately since it had not been considered in the
light   of   the   contentions.   It   is   in   that   circumstance,   this
Court   was   of   the   view   that   the   judgment   of   the   High
Court is to be set aside and the matter  is to be remitted
to   the   High   Court.   In   the   case   of   Ramathal   versus
Maruthathal   &   Ors.   (2018)   18   SCC   303 ,   the   issue
considered was as to whether the High Court was wrong
in   interfering   with   the   question   of   fact   in   the   Second
Appeal.   It   was   a   case   where   both   the   courts   below   had
arrived   at   a   concurrent   finding   of   fact   and   both   the
Courts had disbelieved the evidence of witnesses. In such
a   case   where   such   concurrent   factual   finding   was
rendered by two courts and in such situation, it had been
interfered   by   the   High   Court   in   a   Second   Appeal,   this
 
Page  12  of  22

Court   was   of   the   view   that   the   interference   was   not
justified.   However,   it   is   appropriate   to   notice   that   in   the
said   decision   this   Court   had   also   indicated   that   such
restraint against interference is not an absolute rule but
when there is perversity in findings of the court which are
not   based   on   any   material   or   when   appreciation   of
evidence suffers from material irregularity the High Court
would be entitled to interfere on a question of fact as well.
The   decision   in   the   case   of   Ram   Daan   (dead)   through
Lrs.   versus   Urban   Improvement   Trust.   (2014)   8   SCC
902 , is a case, where in a suit for permanent injunction
the   plaintiff   had   pleaded   possession   from   the   year   1942
and   the   defendant   had   admitted   the   possession   of   the
plaintiff   from   1965   though   it   was   contended   that   they
had re­entered the property after being evicted in 1965. It
is in that circumstance the case of the plaintiff seeking to
protect the possession was accepted and the necessity for
seeking declaration did not arise as the defendant did not
assert   its   right   of   ownership   which   is   not   so   in   the
instant   case.   In   the   case   of   P.   Velayudhan   &   Ors.
 
Page  13  of  22

versus   Kurungot   Imbichia   Moidu’s   son   Ayammad   &
Ors.   (1990)   Supp.   SCC   9   and   in   the   case   of   Tapas
Kumar   Samanta   versus   Sarbani   Sen   &   Anr.   (2015)
12   SCC   523 ,   the   decisions   are   to   the   effect   that   in   a
Second   Appeal   the   High   Court   would   not   be   justified   in
interfering   with   the   finding   of   fact   made   by   the   first
appellate   court   since   such   finding   rendered   would   be
based on evidence. On this aspect there can be no doubt
that   the   same   is   the   settled   position   of   law   but   it   would
depend   on   the   fact   situation   and   the   manner   in   which
the evidence is appreciated in the particular facts. In the
case   of   Ramji   Rai   &   Anr.   versus   Jagdish   Mallah
(dead) thr. Lrs. & Anr. (2007) 14 SCC 200  though it is
held   that   there   was   no   need   to   seek   for   declaration   and
suit for possession alone was sustainable, it was held so
in   the   circumstance   where   injunction   was   sought   in
respect   of   the   disputed   land   which   was   an   area
appurtenant   to   their   building   in   which   case   possession
alone   was   relevant   and   restraint   sought   was   against
preventing construction of compound wall. 
 
Page  14  of  22

13 .   In   the   background   of   the   legal   position   and   on
reasserting   the   position   that   there   is   very   limited   scope
for   reappreciating   the   evidence   or   interfering   with   the
finding   of   fact   rendered   by   the   trial   court   and   the   first
appellate  court  in   a   second   appeal  under   Section   100   of
the   Civil   Procedure   Code,   it   is   necessary   for   us   to   take
note   as   to   whether   in   the   instant   facts   the   High   Court
has breached the said settled position. To that extent the
factual aspects and  the evidence tendered by  the parties
has   already   been   noted   above   in   brief.   Further,   what   is
distinct in the present facts of the case is that the finding
rendered   by   the   learned   Munsif   (Trial   Court)   and   by   the
learned   District   Judge   (First   Appellate   Court)   are
divergent. The trial court on taking note of the pleadings
and   the   evidence   available   before   it   was   of   the   opinion
that the plaintiff has failed to prove exclusive possession
and,   in   such   light,   held   that   the   entitlement   for
permanent   injunction   has   not   been   established.   While
arriving at such conclusion the trial court had taken note
of   the   right   as   claimed   by   the   plaintiff   and   in   that
 
Page  15  of  22

background had arrived at the conclusion that except for
the   say   of   plaintiff   as   PW1   there   was   no   other   evidence.
On   the   documentary   evidence   it   was   indicated   that   the
kist   receipts   at   Exhibit   A5   series   would   not   establish
possession   merely   because   the   name   has   been
subsequently   substituted   in   the   patta   records   and   the
kist had been paid. 
14 .    As   against   such   conclusion,   the   first   appellate
court in fact has placed heavy reliance solely on the kist
receipts which in fact had led the first appellate court to
arrive   at   the   conclusion   that   the   continuous   payment   of
kist   would   indicate   that   the   plaintiff   was   also   in
possession of the property. When such divergent findings
on fact were available before the High Court in an appeal
under   Section   100   of   the   Civil   Procedure   Code   though
reappreciation   of   the   evidence   was   not   permissible,
except   when   it   is   perverse,   but   it   was   certainly   open   for
the High Court to take note of the case pleaded, evidence
tendered, as also the findings rendered by the two courts
which   was   at   variance   with   each   other   and   one   of   the
 
Page  16  of  22

views   taken   by   the   courts   below   was   required   to   be
approved. 
15 .   In view of the above, although the counsel for the
appellant   may   be   technically   correct   in   his   submission
that   the   High   Court   erred   in   not   clearly   answering   the
question of law framed by it under Section 100, CPC, the
High   Court   was   still   within   its   jurisdiction   to   determine
whether   the   reading   of   the   evidence   on   record   by   one   of
the   Courts   below   was   perverse.   Question   of   law   for
consideration   will   not   arise   in   abstract   but   in   all   cases
will emerge from the facts peculiar to that case and there
cannot   be   a   strait   jacket   formula.   Therefore,   merely
because   the   High   Court   refers   to   certain   factual   aspects
in the case to raise and conclude on the question of law,
the   same   does   not   mean   that   the   factual   aspect   and
evidence   has   been   reappreciated.   As   already   noted,   the
divergent   view   of   the   courts   below   on   the   same   set   of
facts   was   available   before   the   High   Court.   From   the
judgment   rendered   by   the   trial   court,   the   nature   of
contentions   as   noted   would   disclose   that   the   plaintiff
 
Page  17  of  22

except   contending   that   the   suit   schedule   property   was
being enjoyed for the past 40 years by paying kist has not
in   fact   referred   to   the   manner   in   which   such   right   had
accrued so as to suggest or indicate unassailable right to
be   in   physical   possession.   On   the   other   hand,   the
defendant while denying the right of the plaintiff to claim
the   relief   had   traced   the   manner   in   which   the   property
had devolved and the right which is being claimed by the
defendant. It was also contended that the defendant No.1
is   residing   in   the   thatched   house   which   is   on   the
property.   It   is   in   that   light   the   trial   court   having   taken
note   of   the   assertions   made   by   the   defendant   No.1   and
lack   of   evidence   by   the   plaintiff   had   arrived   at   the
conclusion that the possession of the plaintiff as claimed
cannot be accepted and that the plaintiff has not sought
for declaration despite the defendant having disputed the
claim of the plaintiff. 
16 .    The   trial   court   while   answering   Issue   No.1and
Addl.   Issue   No.1,   on   adverting   to   rival   contentions   and
evidence, recorded thus: 
 
Page  18  of  22

“Though   the   claim   of   the   plaintiff   is   denied   by
the  1st defendant,  the plaintiff has  not  sought
the   relief   of   declaration   as   already   adverted.
The   only   question   remains   to   be   answered   is
whether   the   plaintiff   has   been   enjoyment   of
suit   property   and   he   is   entitled   to   relief   of
permanent injunction as prayed for”. 
The   trial  court,   thereafter   on   assessing  the   evidence   has
concluded thus:
  “This   Court   feels   that   these   documents   do   not
require   any   consideration.   Hence   this   court
could   not   conclude   that   the   plaintiff   is   in
possession   and   enjoyment   of   the   suit
properties based on the documents marked as
exhibits on the side of the plaintiff”.
  17 .   One other aspect which is also to be noted is that
the plaintiff himself had filed applications before the trial
court   claiming   that   the   defendant   No.1   had   trespassed
into   the   suit   property   and   encroached   the   house   after
grant   of   temporary   injunction.   In   another   application
filed it was contended by the plaintiff that the defendant
had   trespassed   and   is   residing   in   the   thatched   house.
Whereas   the   defendant   No.1   in   his   written   statement
itself had stated that he is residing in the thatched house
 
Page  19  of  22

situate   in   the   suit   schedule   property.   The   said
applications   have   not   been   pressed   to   its   logical
conclusion   nor   has   any   other   step   been   taken   to   seek
restoration   of   possession   by   establishing   that   the
possession in fact had been taken by the defendant No.1
subsequent   to   the   interim   injunction.   Therefore,   on   all
counts   the   possession   of   the   suit   schedule   property   was
also not established. 
18 .    That   apart,   though   the   lower   appellate   court   had
reversed the judgment of the trial court, this aspect of the
matter   relating   to   the   grievance   of   the   plaintiff   that   he
had   been   dispossessed   had   not   been   addressed   and
despite   the   plaintiff   not   being   in   possession   the
injunction   being   granted   by   the   lower   appellate   court
would not be justified. On the other hand a perusal of the
judgment   passed   by   the   learned   District   Judge   and   the
observations   contained   therein   to   the   effect   that   the
defendant   has   not   produced   any   documentary   evidence
to   show   that   Arockiammal   is   the   only   heir   of   deceased
Marimuthu   Kudumban   and   also   that   defendant   No.1
 
Page  20  of  22

alone is the legal heir of deceased Arockiammal, daughter
of   Marimuthu   Kudumban   and   the   conclusion   that   there
is   no   clinching   proof   on   behalf   of   the   defendant   that   he
has paid kist to the suit property as also the observation
that   the   defendant   has   miserably   failed   to   prove   his
possession   over   the   suit   property,   on   the   face   of   it
indicate   that   the   learned   District   Judge   has   misdirected
himself and proceeded at a tangent by placing the burden
on   the   defendant.   Though   there   was   no   issue   to   that
effect   before   the   trial   court,   the   learned   District   Judge
with   such   conclusions   has   ultimately   set   aside   the   well­
considered   judgment   and   decree   dated   13.04.1993
passed by the trial court in O.S. No.769/1987, which will
indicate   perversity   and   material   irregularity   in
misdirecting   itself   in   wrongly   expecting   the   defendant   to
discharge   the   burden   in   a   suit   for   bare   injunction   and
arriving at a wrong conclusion.
19 . When   the   above   aspects   are   kept   in   view,   without
making any observations as to the question of law raised
in   the   present   appeal,   we   are   of   the   considered   opinion
 
Page  21  of  22

that   it   would   not   be   appropriate   to   interfere   with   the
judgment of the High Court which is in consonance with
the   fact   situation   arising   in   the   instant   case.     In   that
view, we see no merit in this appeal.
20 . The   appeal   is  accordingly   dismissed   with   no   order
as to costs in this appeal.
21 . Pending   applications,   if   any,   shall   stand   disposed
of. 
………….…………CJI
(N.V. RAMANA)
          ………….…………….J.
                                                (A.S. BOPANNA)
………….…………….J.
                                              (HRISHIKESH ROY)
New Delhi,
September 02, 2021
 
Page  22  of  22