LIMITATION – SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND POSSESSION – ARTICLE 65, LIMITATION ACT – WHEN SUIT BARRED

A. CIVIL PROCEDURE – SECOND APPEAL – SECTION 100 CPC – SCOPE – INTERFERENCE WITH FIRST APPELLATE COURT – WHEN PERMISSIBLE

The High Court reaffirmed that in second appeal it cannot re-appreciate evidence unless the findings of the First Appellate Court are:
(i) contrary to mandatory provisions of law;
(ii) contrary to Supreme Court precedent; or
(iii) based on inadmissible or no evidence (paras 16–17).

Held, the First Appellate Court committed perversity by applying a repealed statute (Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1937) despite the overriding effect of Section 4, Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and by reversing the well-considered judgment of the Trial Court (para 14).

B. LIMITATION – SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND POSSESSION – ARTICLE 65, LIMITATION ACT – WHEN SUIT BARRED

Plaintiffs in O.S.No.27/2008 claimed succession on death of Hanumayamma. Evidence of plaintiffs (P.W.1 & P.W.2) established:
– Hanumayamma died in 1988, not in 1993;
– Defendants were in possession from 1983 onwards;
– Plaintiffs had complete knowledge of mutation, passbooks, revenue payments, mortgages, enjoyment by defendants (paras 20–23).

Suit filed in 2001, i.e., more than 12 years after the death of Hanumayamma and after execution of gift deeds in 1983.
Held: Suit hopelessly barred by limitation (paras 20–24).

C. DECLARATION OF TITLE – BURDEN OF PROOF – PLAINTIFF MUST SUCCEED ON OWN TITLE – WEAKNESS OF DEFENDANT’S CASE IRRELEVANT

High Court reiterated principles from Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society (2014) 2 SCC 269, Moran Mar Basselios (1958), and several binding precedents:
Plaintiff in a suit for declaration and possession must establish title independently.
Held, plaintiffs adduced no documentary evidence to establish title; their own admissions disproved possession and title; burden not discharged (paras 21–23, 26–33).

D. HINDU SUCCESSION – SECTION 14(1) – ABSOLUTE OWNERSHIP OF WIDOW – EFFECT OF REPEAL OF HINDU WOMEN’S RIGHTS TO PROPERTY ACT, 1937

Plaintiffs pleaded that Hanumayamma possessed the entire ‘A’, ‘B’, and ‘C’ schedule properties continuously from 1941 until her death (paras 27–29, 38, 45–46).
Held:

1. By virtue of Section 14(1), Hindu Succession Act, 1956, any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the Act, becomes her full and absolute estate (paras 44, 49).

2. The Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1937, stood repealed; by Section 4 of the 1956 Act, any inconsistent law ceases to apply (paras 42–43).

3. Hanumayamma, having possessed the property for more than 40 years, became the full owner upon commencement of the 1956 Act (paras 49, 55, 59).

4. As full owner, she was competent to execute registered gift deeds (Ex.B-9, Ex.B-16 to B-19) in 1983 without consent of alleged reversioners (paras 24, 49–55).

E. GIFT DEEDS – VALIDITY – ACCEPTANCE – DELIVERY OF POSSESSION – MUTATION – LONG POSSESSION

Defendants proved execution of registered gift deeds (1983), acceptance by donees, delivery of possession, mutation entries, issuance of pattadar and title deed passbooks, revenue payments, bank loans based on property, long possession (paras 21–23, 33–35).
Held:
Gift deeds valid; Trial Court rightly upheld defendants’ title; First Appellate Court erred in disregarding unchallenged registered deeds (paras 39–40).

F. JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY – NO PLEADING – NO PROOF – PLAINT REVEALS EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION OF WIDOW

Plaintiffs never pleaded that the properties were coparcenary or joint family properties (para 37).
Their own plaint states widow possessed the property exclusively from 1941 until death (para 38).
Held: Question of reversion does not arise; plaintiffs’ theory of coparcenary was contrary to their own pleadings and prior litigation (paras 37–40).

G. FIRST APPELLATE COURT – ERROR OF LAW – APPLICATION OF REPEALED ACT – NON-CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE

Held:
The First Appellate Court committed serious legal error by applying the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1937, repealed by Section 31 of the 1956 Act and overridden by Section 4 (paras 39–43, 60).
Its judgment suffered from perversity, incorrect legal tests, and non-appreciation of binding evidence (paras 39–40, 60).

H. CONTEMPT – ORDER 39 RULE 2-A CPC – NO UNDERTAKING – NO INJUNCTION – NO CASE OF WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE

Petition alleged violation of interim order dated 28.01.2020.
Held:
– No injunction order was ever passed restraining construction or alteration of property (paras 65–67).
– Undertaking not to take coercive steps in E.P. was given by counsel for plaintiffs in I.A., not by alleged contemnors (paras 65–67).
– No undertaking by respondents/contemnors; no order restraining construction; no enforceable direction.

Contempt petition closed (paras 61–68).

I. RESULT – SECOND APPEALS ALLOWED – TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT RESTORED – FIRST APPELLATE COURT SET ASIDE

Held (para 69):
– S.A. Nos. 651 and 652 of 2019 allowed.
– Judgment and decree dated 06.09.2019 in A.S. Nos. 30 & 32 of 2013 set aside.
– Judgment and decree dated 21.02.2012 in O.S. Nos. 21 & 27 of 2008 restored and confirmed.
– Contempt case closed.
– Parties to bear their own costs.