THERAKHATOON (D) BY LRS. versus SLAMBIN MOHAMMAD

THERAKHATOON (D) BY LRS. versus SLAMBIN MOHAMMAD

Although the High Court erred in not framing a substantial question of law and interfered with pure findings of fact in second appeal, the Supreme Court, due to the discretionary power under Article 136 and the plaintiff's significant delay in seeking relief, holds that possession should not be restored and removal of the rooms should not be ordered. Instead, the plaintiff is entitled to compensation for the value of the land as of 19.9.1987.

Parties
Appellant: Therakhaton (D) by LRs.; Respondent: Slambin Mohammad
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
26 February 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Bombay High Court Second Appeal No. 543 of 1979
Outcome
Appeal dismissed, judgment of High Court substantially affirmed with modification.
Legal Topics
Supreme Court Discretionary Power Under Article 136, Scope of Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC, Genuineness of Agreement for Sale, Compensation in Lieu of Possession
Civil Law Property Law Constitutional Law Supreme Court Discretionary Power Under Article 136 Scope of Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC Genuineness of Agreement for Sale Compensation in Lieu of Possession

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Therakhaton (D) by LRs.

Appellant

Slambin Mohammad

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Bombay High Court Second Appeal No. 543 of 1979

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court could interfere with findings of fact regarding genuineness of the agreement of sale in second appeal without framing a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC.
  2. 2 Whether the Supreme Court's discretionary power under Article 136 continues after grant of special leave, permitting the Court to mould relief or decline interference despite an error below.
  3. 3 Whether the peculiar facts warranted interference with relief for possession and mandatory injunction or only compensation.

Ratio Decidendi

Although the High Court erred in not framing a substantial question of law and interfered with pure findings of fact in second appeal, the Supreme Court, due to the discretionary power under Article 136 and the plaintiff's significant delay in seeking relief, holds that possession should not be restored and removal of the rooms should not be ordered. Instead, the plaintiff is entitled to compensation for the value of the land as of 19.9.1987.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed, judgment of High Court substantially affirmed with modification.

Orders

  • The respondent-defendant shall pay compensation for the value of the disputed land (25' x 11') as of 19.9.1987, to be determined by the Trial Court after evidence.
  • If the amount is not paid within the time fixed by the Trial Court, the plaintiff may recover it as a money decree.