Suit – Collusive suit to avoid execution of decree – Defendant No.3/respondent No.3 sold the suit property to one ‘B’ by registered sale deed dated 07.10.1965 – On death of ‘B’, defendant No.1 & 2/respondent Nos. 1 & 2 inherited the suit property – Some dispute arose between defendant no.3 and defendant nos. 1 & 2 – Thereafter, defendant No.1 & 2 filed suit against defendant No.3 for declaration of title over the suit property – Trial Court by judgment/decree dated 31.01.1975 held that defendant Nos.1 & 2 were the owners of suit property – This decree attained finality – Thereafter, two plaintiffs (sisters of defendant No.3) filed a suit against defendant No.1 & 2 for declaration that decree dated 31.01.1975 and sale deed dated 07.10.1965 were not binding on both the plaintiffs – Suit dismissed by the Trial Court – First appeal and second appeal were also dismissed by the First Appellate Court and the High Court respectively – On appeal, held: All three Courts were right in their reasoning and conclusion – It was a collusive suit filed at the behest of defendant No.3 through his two sisters and family members to avoid execution of a valid decree dated 31.01.1975 – The sale of the suit property was made by the Karta-defendant No.3 for legal necessity and benefit of the family, the same was binding on all the members of the family including the plaintiffs – Thus, the findings were recorded on proper appreciation of facts and law and hence no interference required.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. According to this Court, all the three Courts (Civil Judge, first Appellate Court and the High Court) were right in their reasoning and the conclusion on all the factual and legal issues raised by defendant Nos.1 and 2 and there is no ground to differ with their reasoning and the conclusion. [Para 19] [1056-F-G]
2. First, the findings impugned in the appeal being concurrent in nature, were not only binding on the High Court while deciding the second appeal and were rightly held to be so binding but such findings are binding on this Court too; Second, even otherwise, all the findings have been recorded on proper appreciation of facts and law and hence do not call for any interference in this appeal as detailed infra. [Para 20] [1056-G-H; 1057-A]
3. Third, the suit in question was apparently a collusive suit filed at the behest of defendant No.3 through his two sisters and family members to avoid execution of a valid decree dated 31.01.1975 passed by the competent Civil Court against defendant No.3 in relation to the suit property. Fourth, in the light of findings recorded by the Trial Court in the previous suit, the present suit was rightly dismissed by all the Courts below. [Paras 21 and 22][1057-B-C]
4. Fifth, once it was held that the sale of the suit property was made by the Karta- defendant No.3 and it was made for legal necessity and the benefit of the family, the same was binding on all the members of the family including the plaintiffs.[Para 25]
5. Sixth, the plaintiffs failed to plead and prove that the sale in question was not for the benefit of family or that there was no legal necessity for such sale or as to on what basis, they claimed share in the suit property. On the other hand, defendant Nos.1 and 2 were able to prove that the sale was for the legal necessity and benefit of the family. [Para 25][1057-G-H]
6. Seventh, the plaintiffs themselves admitted in their evidence that they filed a civil suit at the instigation of defendant No.3-their real brother. This clearly indicates that the suit was not filed for a bona fide cause but it was a collusive suit filed by the plaintiffs to overcome the valid decree obtained by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 against defendant No.3 and to save defendant No.3 from its execution. [Para 26][1058-A-B]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.