The dispute relates to 110 cents of land at No. 95, East Ayakudi Village, Palani, Tamil Nadu which originally belonged to the first plaintiff, Natchimuthu. He had executed a gift deed in favour of his first wife, Ramathal in respect of 50 cents of land. The suit was filed jointly by Natchimuthu and his wife Ramathal, described as plaintiff nos. 1 and 2, respectively. (Para 2)
The Trial Court, vide judgment and order dated 06.01.1998, dismissed the suit relying upon the contents of the Power of Attorney to be genuine. It did not accept the plea of the plaintiffs that defendant no. 2 had misrepresented and played mischief by incorporating the power to sell and other clauses of transfer of Patta etc., which according to the plaintiffs they had never authorised. (Para 8)
The plaintiffs preferred a First Appeal before the Sub-Court at Palani which was registered as A.S. No. 28 of 1998. During the pendency of the appeal, the first plaintiff died and his legal heirs were brought on record. The First Appellate Court framed points for consideration including the point of non est factum and after due analysis and appreciation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, it came to the conclusion, that the contents of Power of Attorney had been fraudulently incorporated without any due authorisation only to deprive plaintiffs of their valuable rights. The appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed. (Para 9)
Once the First Appellate Court, after appreciating and analysing the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the plea of non est factum was proved, the said finding, being a finding of fact, ought not to have been interfered by the High Court in Second Appeal. The Power of Attorney, having been found to be invalid, any further action taken pursuant to it, cannot also be held to be valid. (Para 30)
The High Court, while exercising its power under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, exceeded its jurisdiction in disturbing the pure findings of fact and that too on incorrect appreciation and reading of the pleadings. Nonframing of an issue, which is otherwise covered in a broader issue and for which there was sufficient pleading and evidence, the suit could not have been dismissed on that ground. (Para 31)
The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of the First Appellate Court is maintained. The suit of the appellants stands decreed. (Para 32)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2023 STPL(Web) 185 SC
[2023 INSC 737]
Ramathal & Ors. Vs. K. Rajamani (Dead) Through Lrs & Anr.
Civil Appeal No. 8830 of 2012-Decided on 17-8-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/2023-STPLWeb-185-SC.pdf
