TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (10) TMI 699
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is the case of the plaintiff that he too has got a right to enjoy the benefit of the grant made in favour of defendants 1 to 5. The plaintiff and also defendant 6 made application before the Tahsildar questioning the regrant made in favour of defendants 1 to 5 and the said application was rejected. 3. Against the said rejection order of the Tahsildar, the plaintiff preferred Writ Petition No. 2700 of 1981 before this Court and the said writ petition came to be allowed by an order dated 17-2-1981 and the notice issued by the Tahsildar came to be quashed. A further order was passed in the very same writ petition on an application i.e., I.A. No. I filed by the appellant herein seeking a direction to the Tahsildar to accept 15 times the land revenue assessment in respect of the lands in question, and the said application was also allowed by directing the Tahsildar to regularise the sale in favour of the plaintiff by recovering 15 times the land revenue. Therefore, pursuant to these orders, the plaintiff has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit lands and the defendants have no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule properties. As the defendants attemp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made by the learned Counsel Sri C.B. Srinivasan for the appellant and the learned Counsel Sri P.S. Manjunath for respondent 5. 7. It is to be mentioned at this juncture that on an earlier occasion, this Court had disposed of this appeal and aggrieved by this appeal being allowed, defendant 6 preferred Civil Appeal No. 207 of 2000 before the Supreme Court and the said civil appeal was disposed of by the Apex Court by setting aside the order passed by this Court and the Apex Court further directed this Court to dispose of the matter in accordance with law by formulating proper questions of law. In the course of remanding the matter to this Court, the Apex Court had also observed that the appeal is being disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. 8. In view of the above direction given in the civil appeal by the Apex Court, the following substantial questions of law has been formulated for consideration in this second appeal: Whether on the pleadings and the material brought on record by the plaintiff, the First Appellate Court was right in holding that no case of possession on the date of the present suit was made out, and the plaintiffs suit was liable....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d and the documents upon which both the parties had placed reliance were also considered by the lower Appellate Court and, therefore, the finding of fact recorded by the lower Appellate Court, which is not perverse, cannot therefore be interfered with in second appeal by this Court. Secondly, it was submitted that the plaintiff had suppressed an important fact viz., he having filed an earlier suit in O.S. No. 398 of 1967 for the very same relief of permanent injunction against defendant 6 and the said suit came to be dismissed and along after the said event, the appellant has once again filed the present suit for the very same relief without coming out with the fact as to how the appellant came in possession of the suit schedule properties at a later stage. Therefore, having failed to place before this Court the said material fact of dismissal of the earlier suit for the very same relief, the view taken by the lower Appellate Court that the present suit is barred by res judicata cannot, therefore, be termed as an erroneous view of the matter. 11. Nextly, it is contended that this Court in W.P. No. 3288 of 1982 disposed of on 31-1-1985, had observed that in the event of M.A. No. 4 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the lower Appellate Court was justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff on the footing that the plaintiff had failed to establish that he is in possession of the suit schedule properties and also on the ground aires judicata. 14. The plaintiff filed the suit claiming the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants basing his claim on the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 2700 of 1981 (Ex. P. 4). It is his case that pursuant to the above writ petition being allowed and the order of the Tahsildar being set aside, there was a further direction given on the I.A. filed by the appellant by which the Tahsildar was directed to receive 15 times the amount of land revenue from the appellant and to regularise the appellant as khathedar in respect of the lands in question. It is these two orders of this Court that led the appellant to file the present suit for grant of permanent injunction. From a perusal of the pleadings as well as the documents produced by both sides, it becomes clear that there was also an order passed in favour of defendant 6 by this Court in W.P. No. 3288 of 1982 (Ex. D. 15) and while dismissing the writ petition, this Court made the following obse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order passed in M.A. No. 4 of 1981 coupled with the observations made by this Court in W.P. No. 3288 of 1982 (Ex. D. 15), the case of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties cannot be accepted despite the documents produced by him. The said appreciation of evidence by the lower Appellate Court cannot be termed as contrary to the evidence on record nor it can be said that the said finding was based on no evidence. As such, the view taken by the lower Appellate Court is a possible view emerging from the entire material on record. 18. Such being the position, it as not permissible for this Court to substitute its opinion for the opinion of the First Appellate Court unless it is shown that the conclusion reached by the lower Appellate Court was erroneous or was based upon inadmissible evidence or contrary to the settled position on the basis of the pronouncement made by the Apex Court. Therefore, having regard to the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Mst. Sugani v. Rameshwar Das and Anr. , where from a given set of circumstances two inferences are possible, one drawn by the lower Appellate Court is binding on the High Court in second app....