Suit:
Suit for restoration of possession, mesne profit and for permanent injunction – In respect of house property – Claiming to be owner of the property – Against brother (defendant No.1) and sister (defendant No. 2) of the plaintiff – Defendants’ case was that the property was a family property and not exclusively owned by the plaintiff; and the possession of the defendant was in the capacity of owner – Trial Court decreed the suit – Decree was further affirmed by High Court in first appeal and in Review – On appeal, held: The facts and circumstances of the case indicate that the property in question was a family property and not exclusive property of the plaintiff – The courts below have acted perversely and in most arbitrary and illegal manner, while accepting the ipse dixit of the plaintiff and in decreeing the suit – Legal inferences from admitted facts have not been correctly drawn – Concurrent finding of facts which are impermissible and perverse cannot have binding effect on the Court – Suit is liable to be dismissed – Appeal allowed. Surendra Kumar v. Phoolchand (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr. (1996) 2 SCC 491; Union of India v. Moksh Builders & Financiers Ltd. & Ors. (1977) 1 SCC 60; Sri Marcel Martins v. M. Printer & Ors. (2012) 5 SCC 342; Vathsala Manickavasagam & Ors. v. N. Ganesan & Anr. (2013) 9 SCC 152 – relied on.
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.