To the south of the property sold to the respondents-defendants, 'A' schedule property as shown in the suit was earmarked for the purpose of road. However, the City Development Authority did not approve the same and hence no road was formed. Case of the appellants-plaintiffs is that since no road was formed, they continued to be the owners of the 'A' schedule property and they are the absolute owners of the same.=the plaintiffs have earmarked the land on the southern side intended for road and no road was formed and land of one Advocate V.B.K. Dias was acquired and road was formed therein. From the evidence of DW-1-President and Councilor of the Municipality and DW-4, Assistant Commissioner, courts below recorded findings that the 'A' schedule property is still in the name of the plaintiffs and that there was no acquisition and payment of compensation made to the first plaintiff in respect of the disputed property.="...No doubt shall arise to hold that, it is proved that, defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have encroached upon 781/4' x 2' in schedule 'A' property, which is also corroborated by Ex-P5. It is also the first rough sketch submitted by the Court Commissioner. But though the extent of the encroachment area reported therein does not absolutely tally with the extent of 'B' schedule property, encroachment of 781/4' x 2' by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 out of it is proved...." = Both the courts below negatived the said plea holding that there are no traces of encroachment of 80' x 3' by the defendants on the northern side.Based on oral and documentary evidence, both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that plaintiffs have established their right in 'A' schedule property. In the light of concurrent findings of fact, no substantial questions of law arose in the High Court and there was no substantial ground for re-appreciation of evidence. While so, the High Court proceeded to observe that the first plaintiff has earmarked the 'A' schedule property for road and that she could not have full fledged right and on that premise proceeded to hold that declaration to plaintiffs' right cannot be granted. In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C., concurrent findings of fact cannot be upset by the High Court unless the findings so recorded are shown to be perverse. In our considered view, the High Court did not keep in view that the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, are based on oral and documentary evidence and the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained.
To the south of the property sold to the respondents-defendants, ‘A’ schedule property as shown in the suit was earmarked for the purpose of road. However, the City Development Authority did not approve the same and hence no road was formed. Case of the appellants-plaintiffs is that since no road was formed, they continued to be the owners of the ‘A’ schedule property and they are the absolute owners of the same.=the plaintiffs have earmarked the land on the southern side intended for road and no road was formed and land of one Advocate V.B.K. Dias was acquired and road was formed therein. From the evidence of DW-1-President and Councilor of the Municipality and DW-4, Assistant Commissioner, courts below recorded findings that the ‘A’ schedule property is still in the name of the plaintiffs and that there was no acquisition and payment of compensation made to the first plaintiff in respect of the disputed property.=”…No doubt shall arise to hold that, it is proved that, defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have encroached upon 781/4′ x 2′ in schedule ‘A’ property, which is also corroborated by Ex-P5. It is also the first rough sketch submitted by the Court Commissioner. But though the extent of the encroachment area reported therein does not absolutely tally with the extent of ‘B’ schedule property, encroachment of 781/4′ x 2′ by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 out of it is proved….” = Both the courts below negatived the said plea holding that there are no traces of encroachment of 80′ x 3′ by the defendants on the northern side.Based on oral and documentary evidence, both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that plaintiffs have established their right in ‘A’ schedule property. In the light of concurrent findings of fact, no substantial questions of law arose in the High Court and there was no substantial ground for re-appreciation of evidence. While so, the High Court proceeded to observe that the first plaintiff has earmarked the ‘A’ schedule property for road and that she could not have full fledged right and on that premise proceeded to hold that declaration to plaintiffs’ right cannot be granted. In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C., concurrent findings of fact cannot be upset by the High Court unless the findings so recorded are shown to be perverse. In our considered view, the High Court did not keep in view that the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, are based on oral and documentary evidence and the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 176 OF 2015
LAXMIDEVAMMA & ORS. .. Appellants
RANGANATH & ORS. .. Respondents
