THULASIDHARA & ANOTHER versus NARAYANAPPA & OTHERS

THULASIDHARA & ANOTHER versus NARAYANAPPA & OTHERS

The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC by reappreciating evidence and substituting its view without a substantial question of law; concurrent factual findings of the Trial and First Appellate Courts that the partition (Exhibit D4) operated as a family Palupatti and that the sale deeds (notably Exhibit P1 and Exhibit P2) were nominal/sham and not acted upon were supported by evidence and could not be upset; Exhibit D4 was admissible as family arrangement/Palupatti or corroborative evidence and need not be registered for that purpose; accordingly the High Court's judgment was quashed and the lower courts' judgments dismissing the suit were restored.

Parties
Appellant: THULASIDHARA & ANOTHER; Respondent: NARAYANAPPA & OTHERS
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court in Regular Second Appeal Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned High Court judgment and order set aside; judgments and decrees of Trial Court and First Appellate Court restored; suit dismissed.
Legal Topics
Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC, Partition, Registration, Sale Deed, Family Settlement, Estoppel
Civil Procedure Property Law Evidence Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC Partition Registration Sale Deed Family Settlement +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THULASIDHARA & ANOTHER

Appellant

NARAYANAPPA & OTHERS

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court in Regular Second Appeal Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC by reappreciating evidence without a substantial question of law
  2. 2 Whether the Partition Deed dated 23.04.1971 required registration and was admissible
  3. 3 Whether the registered sale deeds conveyed title or were nominal/sham and not acted upon

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC by reappreciating evidence and substituting its view without a substantial question of law; concurrent factual findings of the Trial and First Appellate Courts that the partition (Exhibit D4) operated as a family Palupatti and that the sale deeds (notably Exhibit P1 and Exhibit P2) were nominal/sham and not acted upon were supported by evidence and could not be upset; Exhibit D4 was admissible as family arrangement/Palupatti or corroborative evidence and need not be registered for that purpose; accordingly the High Court's judgment was quashed and the lower courts' judgments dismissing the suit were restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned High Court judgment and order set aside; judgments and decrees of Trial Court and First Appellate Court restored; suit dismissed.

Orders

  • Impugned Judgment and Order of the High Court dated 25.07.2007 quashed and set aside
  • Judgments and Decrees passed by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissing the suit are restored