2022 (9) TMI 1590 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court restores adoption-based property ownership decree after appellate court corrected trial court's error on evidence evaluation

The SC allowed the appeal and set aside the HC judgment, restoring the First Appellate Court's decree. The case involved a declaration of ownership and ... Seeking relief of declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit property -Transactions of sale - Mutation of names in revenue records - Loan transactions and Ownership - Original Plaintiff adopted by Baliram - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, evidence was adduced at the trial. The Original Plaintiff examined himself as witness and examined five other witnesses. The Original Plaintiff gave evidence of adoption. The second witness Trivenibai, wife of Digamber, the brother of the Original Plaintiff, Chandrabhan stated that there was an adoption ceremony held at the residence of Rambhau. She also stated that the Original Plaintiff Chandrabhan had performed the last rites of Baliram as his adopted son. The other witnesses also deposed that they had attended the ceremony at which the Original Plaintiff Chandrabhan had been given in adoption to Baliram. The Trial Court rejected the contention of the Plaintiff on the ground of contradiction and inconsistencies in the evidence. In this case, as observed above, evidence had been adduced on behalf of the Original Plaintiff as well as the Defendants. The First Appellate Court analysed the evidence carefully and in effect found that the Trial Court had erred in its analysis of evidence and given undue importance to discrepancies and inconsistencies, which were not really material, overlooking the time gap of 34 years that had elapsed since the date of the adoption. There was no such infirmity in the reasoning of the First Appellate Court which called for interference. Right of appeal is not automatic. Right of appeal is conferred by statute. When statute confers a limited right of appeal restricted only to cases which involve substantial questions of law, it is not open to this Court to sit in appeal over the factual findings arrived at by the First Appellate Court. The questions raised in High Court, did not meet the tests laid down by this Court for holding that the questions are substantial questions of law. We are constrained to hold that there was no question of law, let alone any substantial question of law, involved in the Second Appeal. The appeal is, for the reasons, as discussed above, allowed. The impugned judgment and order is set aside and the judgment and order/decree of the First Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal is restored. Issues Involved:1. Adoption of the Original Plaintiff by Baliram.2. Transactions of sale by Defendant No. 1.3. Mutation of names in revenue records.4. Loan transactions and ownership.5. Use of Baliram's name by the Plaintiff.6. Specific pleadings and inconsistencies in evidence.7. Substantial question of law u/s 100 CPC.Summary:Adoption of the Original Plaintiff by Baliram:The Original Plaintiff, Chandrabhan, claimed to have been adopted by his uncle Baliram. The First Appellate Court found sufficient evidence supporting the adoption, including testimonies from witnesses and the family priest, as well as documents showing Chandrabhan using Baliram's name. The Trial Court had dismissed the suit due to inconsistencies in evidence, but the First Appellate Court considered these inconsistencies natural given the 34-year gap since the adoption.Transactions of Sale by Defendant No. 1:The High Court questioned why the Plaintiff did not challenge other transactions of sale made by Defendant No. 1, Yamunabai, in respect of three agricultural lands left by Baliram. The First Appellate Court did not address this issue.Mutation of Names in Revenue Records:The High Court noted that after Baliram's death, only Defendant No. 1's name was mutated in the revenue records as Baliram's successor, not the Plaintiff's. The First Appellate Court did not consider this circumstance.Loan Transactions and Ownership:The High Court pointed out that the cooperative credit society could not have given a loan to the Plaintiff on Baliram's lands as he was not shown as the owner in the revenue records. It was Defendant No. 1 who repaid the loan. The First Appellate Court overlooked this aspect.Use of Baliram's Name by the Plaintiff:The High Court observed that the Plaintiff never used Baliram's name as his father and continued to use his natural father Rambhau's name. The First Appellate Court did not give due weight to this circumstance.Specific Pleadings and Inconsistencies in Evidence:The High Court questioned the absence of specific pleadings regarding the particulars of adoption and inconsistencies in witness evidence. The First Appellate Court found the inconsistencies natural due to the time gap and concluded that the essential requisites of adoption were established.Substantial Question of Law u/s 100 CPC:The Supreme Court held that a Second Appeal u/s 100 CPC can only be entertained on a substantial question of law. The High Court's interference with the First Appellate Court's findings was unwarranted as it involved reappreciation of evidence, which is not permissible. The High Court did not formulate any substantial question of law, and its judgment was set aside.Conclusion:The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the First Appellate Court's judgment in favor of the Original Plaintiff was restored.