Judgment Doesn’t Conform To Scope Of Section100 CPC: Supreme Court Sets Aside Madras High Court Order Passed In Second Appeal Ignoring Material Evidence

The appeal before the Apex Court was filed by the defendants assailing the correctness of the judgment of the Madras High Court whereby the Second Appeal filed by the plaintiff was allowed and the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the Sub-Judge dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-respondents were set aside and the suit was decreed.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held, “In view of the above discussion and on the findings recorded above, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained as it not only does not conform to the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but also as it was perverse on appreciated evidence, and also ignoring material evidence.”

Factual Background

The property in question originally belonged to one Avinashi Gounder, who had four sons namely, Arunachalam, Arumugam, Ramasamy and Palaniyappan. The Plaintiffs are the wife and the adopted son of Arunachalam. The first defendant is the daughter of Palaniyappan, and the second defendant is the vendee of the suit property from the first defendant. According to the plaintiffs, the four brothers had entered into an oral partition and the suit property came to the share of Arunachalam. After his death, the plaintiffs became the absolute owners of the property in suit.

It was claimed that the second defendant clandestinely obtained the sale deed in respect of the suit property from the first defendant. It was further the case of the plaintiff that the entire property which was allotted to Palaniyappan (father of the first defendant) had been sold by the first defendant with specific boundaries to one Mathiyalagan. It was thus the claim of the plaintiffs that the defendants would not have any right over the properties of Avinashi Gounder and that the plaintiffs were in possession and were cultivating the land in suit. However, the necessity for filing the suit arose as the second defendant tried to trespass on the suit property. The Trial Court dismissed the suit and held that the plaintiffs were not the owners of the property in suit.

When the matter reached the High Court in a second appeal, based only on the finding that oral partition was proved, the High Court allowed the second appeal after setting aside the judgments of the lower Courts.

Reasoning

The Bench found that the suit property was never recorded in the name of the plaintiffs or the husband of the first plaintiff at any time. The will, which was the basis of the claim of plaintiff, was not proved in accordance with the law. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had dealt with the two sale deeds and found that these were not sufficient to prove the oral partition or in any manner establish the oral partition concerning the survey number in question

It was further noticed that although the plaintiffs set up a case that the land in suit was coming from Avinashi Gounder but on record, two pattas were filed which established that the survey number in question had been allotted in the name of the first plaintiff and eight others jointly with respect to which there was no partition. This fact was admitted by the plaintiffs in their deposition. All these aspects had been considered by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, but the High Court failed to consider the oral as well as the documentary evidence.

As per the Bench, the High Court recorded a perverse finding that oral partition had taken place only based on the two sale deeds and one mortgage deed, which related to different pieces and parcels of land. It also did not deal with the other findings recorded by the Courts below.“In view of the above discussion and on the findings recorded above, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained as it not only does not conform to the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but also as it was perverse on appreciated evidence, and also ignoring material evidence”, it said.

Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. “The suit of the respondent-plaintiff stands dismissed”, it ordered.

Cause Title: Rajendhiran v. Muthaiammal @ Muthayee & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 508)

Click here to read/download Judgment