Balasubramanian And Another (S) v. M. Arockiasamy (Dead) Through Lrs. (S).

CITATION	2021 SCC ONLINE SC 655
DATE OF JUDGMENT	2nd September 2024
COURT	SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
APPELLANT	Balasubramanian & Anr.
RESPONDENT	M. Arockiasamy (dead) Through LRs.
BENCH	Chief Justice of India NV Ramana ,Justice AS Bopanna, Justice Hrishikesh Roy

INTRODUCTION

This case, Balasubramaniam versus M.Arokiasamy (Dead) Thr. Lrs., decided by the Supreme Court of India on September 2, 2021, deals with important areas of Code of  Civil Procedure and property law. The controversy arose from a permanent injunction suit filed in 1987, which was heard by Lower courts before reaching the apex court. At its core, the issue concerns the relationship between possession, title, and the right to injunctive relief in property disputes. It also highlights the limits and limitations of second appeals under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), particularly with regard to reassessment of evidence and factual findings made by lower courts.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The appellant (plaintiff) filed a lawsuit seeking a permanent injunction to prevent the respondents (defendants) from interfering with his claimed possession of the suit property.
2. The plaintiff claimed he had been in possession of the property for 40 years and was paying taxes.
3. The defendant contested the plaintiff’s claim, asserting his own possession and ownership rights to the property. The suit property reportedly belonged to another party before being transferred and sold to the defendant, Arockiammal. Hence, the defendant asked to dismiss the case.
4. After reviewing the parties’ arguments and evidence, the learned Trial Court determined that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate possession of the property and dismissed his complaint with costs on April 13, 1993. 
5. As a result, the plaintiff filed a Regular First Appeal with the District Judge (First Appellate Court) pursuant to Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code. The District Judge, after considering the evidence given by the parties, determined that the plaintiff possessed the suit schedule property and was paying kist for it.
6. In 1994, the defendant subsequently filed a second appeal with the Madras High Court under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which overturned the District Judge’s order and reinstated the trial court’s dismissal of the lawsuit. Therefore, the aggrieved plaintiff had filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.

ISSUES RAISED

1.Whether the appellant proved exclusive possession of the plaint schedule property.

2.Whether the appellant was entitled to a permanent injunction against the respondent.

CONTENTION OF APPELLANT

The Appellant contented that,

1. The High Court’s role in the second appeal under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure is limited to questions of law, and it should not re-evaluate factual findings unless there is clear case of material irregularity or perversity in the lower court’s conclusions.
2. Despite the fact that the High Court framed a substantial question of law , it did not adequately address it in its decision.
3. The substantial question of law framed by the High Court is not sustainable because:

   a) In a suit for bare injunction, the plaintiff is not always required to seek declaratory relief.

   b) Considering this legal position, there was no other substantial question of law that warranted the High Court’s interference in the second appeal.

4. The lower appellate court, being the final court for appreciation of facts, has recorded its findings of fact. These findings cannot be interfered with by the High Court through re-appreciation of evidence.
5. Based on these arguments, the appellant contends that the judgment passed by the High Court is liable to be set aside, and the judgment of the first appellate court should be restored.

CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT

The respondent contented that,

1. The defendant contested the plaintiff’s (Balasubramaniam’s) claim to right and possession of the suit property.
2. The defendant asserted that the suit property was originally owned by Ponnimalai Chetti, Konar Chettiar’s father. Konar Chettiar had purchased a one-third stake in Survey No. 1073/3 and a one-fifth portion in Survey No. 1073/13, although he owned the entire land.
3.  Konar Chettiar had transferred the full extent of the land to the defendant’s grandfather, Marimuthu Kudumban. 
4. Marimuthu Kudumban then sold 0.35 cents of land in Survey No. 1073/13 to Arockiammal, the defendant’s mother. Marimuthu Kudumban enjoyed the remaining 1.41 acres of land in Survey No. 1073/13 as well. 
5.  Following the deaths of Marimuthu Kudumban and Arockiammal, the defendant had and enjoyed the properties through his guardians.
6.  The defendant further claimed that he sold 0.31 cents of land in Survey No. 1073/13 to Parvatham Ammal in 1984, and that the remaining 1.41 acres of land were in his possession and enjoyment. 
7. The defendant denied the plaintiff’s claim that he paid kist for the suit property, claiming that it was done with the intent to sue. 
8. According to the defendant, he lives in a thatched house on the suit property and works in agriculture. 
9. The respondents argued that the trial court’s conclusion regarding the lack of exclusive possession was justified and supported by the evidence presented, including the assertion that Defendant No. 1 resided on the property in question.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s decision. The Court found that:

• While reappreciation of evidence is normally not permitted in a second appeal, the High Court may intervene if the findings are perverse or based on insufficient evidence.
• In this case, the trial court and the first appellate court reached different conclusions. The High Court had the authority to evaluate whether a lower court’s view of evidence was perverse.
• The first appeal court erred by putting the burden on the defendant and reaching incorrect conclusions in a complaint for mere injunction.
• The High Court’s decision was determined to be consistent with the circumstances of the case.

ANALYSIS

The Court reaffirms the well-established legal concept that the matter can only be reconsidered by the Second Appellate Court to a limited extent under Section 100 CPC. However, it is also useful in determining when the High Courts can step in. The decision also establishes that, while High Courts should not normally interfere with concurrent findings of fact, i.e., findings of fact made by other Courts subordinate to High Courts, High Courts can influence findings of fact if such findings are perverse or unsupported by substantial evidence. The law’s rationale is to preserve the purity of fact-finding processes at lower levels while also ensuring protection from blatant errors.

The Court agrees with the premise that, while it is desirable for High Courts to define and resolve key legal questions in second appeals, such questions must be viewed considering the facts of the case. Thus, this viewpoint embraces the fact that legal concerns can arise from, and are tied to, the unique facts of each case.

The decision highlights a crucial aspect of injunction proceedings: the plaintiff bears the sole burden of demonstrating possession. The Court found fault with the first appellate court for incorrectly transferring this responsibility to the defendant. This is an important reminder to lower courts regarding the proper application of evidence principles in such circumstances.

The Court’s comprehensive examination of how different courts interpreted evidence emphasizes the significance of a thorough and balanced evaluation of both documented and oral evidence in civil disputes.
While the Court does not rule explicitly on this question, its approach suggests that the maintainability of bare injunction proceedings, even when ownership is disputed, is determined by the individual facts and evidence of each case, including proof of possession. 

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court’s decision in Balasubramaniam vs M.Arokiasamy (Dead) Thr. Lrs. significantly improves the practicality of Indian civil procedure and the substance of property law regulations in India. There are useful suggestions about how to tackle the substantive/procedural tension in second appeals. The decision further emphasizes that the High Court’s interference in second appeals is significantly limited, while also defining the conditions under which High Courts can and should correct incorrect findings or grave errors in evidence evaluation. 

Reference :

1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/95270753/
2. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/6135ec444a794d3359cc1f5f

By: Chukki Anagha C an intern under legal vidhiya

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.