Supreme Court of India
SURAIN SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. versus MEHENGA (DEAD) BY LRS.
- Decided
- 1 February 1996
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1996] 1 S.C.R. 1152 · 1996 INSC 164
- Also cited as
- (1996) 2 SCC 624
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in R.S.A.No. 878 of 1964 dated September 27, 1976. The appellants/plaintiffs were non-suited by the High Court on the finding that the sale deed was without consideration (Ex. P-1) executed and registered on September 29, 1959. Shri S.K. Gambhir, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the question whether consideration has been passed is a pure question of fact. The appellate Court having gone into that aspect as Court of fact and having entered a finding, reversal thereof by the High Court is illegal. It is not in dispute that in the suit the respondents contended that the sale deed was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation and without consideration. The trial Court dismissed the suit. But on appeal, the appellate Court reversed the finding and held that neither fraud nor misrepresentation was made out. Adequate consideration was passed under the sale deed. Therefore, it is a valid sale deed. The High Court after considering the evidence ultimately recorded a finding that there is no proof that the appellants had paid the consideration. In that behalf, the High Court has looked into the accounts maintained by the appellant himself and it is stated thus :
pp. 1152–1153, margin F
"that no evidence has been led by the respondents/appellants to show that Rs. 2350 were due to them from the appellants/respondents on the basis of Bahi's account and bonds. It has also not been proved by the respondents that the amount of Rs. 1650 was
p. 1153, margin B
paid by them to the appellants."
p. 1153, margin C
On the basis of the said finding, the High Court has reversed the decree of the appellate Court and confirmed, though for different reasons, the decree of the trial Court. Though normally the High Court might not have interfered with the finding recorded by the appellate Court, in view of the diverse views by the trial Court and the appellate Court, the High Court was impelled to go into the question and recorded a finding. The material evidence and relevant circumstances were not adverted to by the first appellate Court. The High Court, therefore, had done that exercise. It being a finding of fact, we do not find it a fit case for our further interference.
p. 1153, margin C
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. But in the circumstances, without costs. G.N. Appeal dismissed.
p. 1153, margin E