Krishnananda v. Kattu Sivaashram and Ors.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: S. B. Sinha
Markandey Katju
Judgment Date: 2007-01-18
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal dismissed. No costs.
Final Disposition: Appeal dismissed. No costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Krishnananda

Respondents

Plaintiff (Respondent No. 1)
Respondent No. 2
Respondent No. 3
Respondent No. 4

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Singhal

Counsels for Respondents

• R. Sundaravaradan
• V. G. Pragasam
• S. Vallinayagam
• V. Krishna Murthy
• V. Balaji
• A. T. M. Sampath

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Supreme Court decision concerns a second appeal filed by defendant No. 4 (appellant) in a dispute over land title. The plaintiff (Respondent No. 1) had filed suit asserting title by possession against the appellant; the trial court dismissed the suit. In the first appeal, the court held that neither the plaintiff nor the appellant had acquired title to the property. The appellant did not pursue any relief against the judgment in a separate suit, and in the second appeal before the High Court, the maintainability was challenged on the ground that no relief was sought and no decree was passed against the appellant. The High Court summarily dismissed the second appeal as not maintainable because it pertained to findings between the plaintiff and the appellant, not an issue inter se between defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, noting that such findings do not warrant a second appeal unless a decree or relief is directed against the appellant. During proceedings, escheat considerations and a purported Will dated 5.1.1965 (in favor of Raman Pillai) were mentioned but declined for examination. The appeal was dismissed with no costs. The judgment clarifies the scope and limits of maintainability of second appeals where the dispute is between co-defendants rather than with the original plaintiff.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the findings of the First Appellate Court regarding the title between him and the plaintiff are relevant to determine the title between the parties and that the second appeal should be maintainable to challenge those findings. He asserts that the absence of a specific decree against him should not deprive him of the remedy and that the second appeal is necessary to test inter se rights even though no relief was granted to him.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents contend that the second appeal is not maintainable because the First Appellate Court’s findings were between the plaintiff and the appellant and not an issue inter se among the defendants; no decree was passed against the appellant; hence no relief could be sought in a second appeal. They also note that escheat and Will matters were not properly before the court and that the High Court rightly dismissed the second appeal for lack of maintainability.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A ## KRISHNANANDA _v._ ## KATTU SIVAASHRAMAND ORS. ## JANUARY 18, 2007 ## B [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.] _Appeal-Second appeal-Maintainability-Suit-Plea of adverse possession by one of the defendants-Title of both plaintiff as well as the defendant rejected by trial court-No appeal by that defendant-In first appeal title of that defendant denied-Second appeal by him dismissedOn appeal, held: Second appeal by the defendant was not maintainable._ c Respondent No. I-Plaintiff filed a suit against defendant No. 4- Appellant. Appellant claimed title over the land by adverse possession. The claim of the appellant was negated by Trial Court. Suit was also dismissed. D ., Appellant did not prefer any appeal thereagainst. In appeal, the First Appellate Court opined that both respondent-No.I and appellant had not acquired any title to the property. Appellant filed second appeal thereagainst and the same was dismissed on the ground that appeal was not maintainable because the appellant did not file any suit regarding his claim nor did trial court give any relief in that behalf. Hence the present appeal. E 1 Dismissing the appeal, the Court F HELD: T~e second appeal filed at the instance of the appellant herein was not maintainable as the First Appellate Court had merely arrived at certain findings which might be relevant for the purpose of determination of an issue by and between the appellant and the original plaintiff, but the same were not relevant for determination of an i~sue amongst the defendants inter se. Moreover, no decree against the appellant was preferred. [Para 5) [1133-F-G) G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6196 of2000. From the Final Judgment and Order dated 20.8.1998 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in S.A. No. 1148/1998. H Atul Y. Chitale, Suchitra Atul Chitale, Sujeeta Srivastava and Madhup 1132 -~- KRISHNANANDA _v._ KATTU SIVAASHRAM [SINHA, J.] 1133 Singhal for the Appellant A R. Sundaravaradan, Sr. Adv., V.G. Pragasam, S. Vallinayagam, V. Krishna Murthy, V. Balaj i and A. T.M. Sampath with him for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B S.B. SINHA, J. : l. The defendant No. 4 in the original suit is the appellant before us. The plaintiff is the first respondent herein. The suit of the original plaintiff was dismissed. The defendant No. 4 did not prefer any appeal thereagainst. c 2. Appellant claimed title over the land by adverse possession. The said claim was negatived by the learned Trial Judge. The First Appellate Court, however, opined that both the plaintiff (respondent No. I herein) and defendant No. 4 (appellant herein) had not acquired any title to the property. _(_ 3. Aggrieved by certain findings arrived at by the First Appellate Court, the appellant preferred a second appeal before the High Court of Madras which was dismissed summarily. The High Court opined that as defendant No. 4 did not file any suit nor the Trial Court having given any relief in that behalf, the appeal was not maintainable. D E 4. The appellant is before us aggrieved by the said order of the High Court. ) 5. There cannot be any doubt that the second appeal filed a the instance of the appellant herein was not maintainable as the First Appellate Court had merely arrived at certain findings which might be relevant for the purpose of determination of an issue by and between the appellant and the original plaintiff, but the same were not relevant for determination of an issue amongst the defendants inter se. Moreover, no decree against the appellant was preferred. 6. It is stated before us by Mr. Sundaravaradan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4, that in view of the fact that the aforementioned Raman Pillai died without leaving behind any issue; escheat proceeding has been initiated. If that be so, there cannot be any doubt, whatsoever, that the appellant herein would be entitled to raise all F G H 1134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 1 S.C.R. , . ..._ - A contentions in regard to his title in appropriate proceedings, if initiated against him. He may even bring a fresh proceedings against the said respondent. 7. The appellant has sought to produce before us a purported Will dated 5.1.1965, executed by the said Raman Pillai. We, however, reject the B prayer of the appellant to take the said Will on record as the contention that Raman Pillai bequeathed his entire property in his favour should not be allowed to be raised before us at this stage for the first time. This appeal is dismissed with the aforementioned observations. No costs. - C K.K.T. Appeal dimissed.