Holding

The High Court cannot interfere with the factual findings of the lower court under Section 100 CPC in the absence of a question of law, and the finding of partition by the Additional District Judge stands.

Summary

The plaintiff, daughter of Moola Narayanaswamy, claimed ownership of a half share in a property sold in insolvency proceedings and alleged a partition in 1952 that allotted her the southern half. The first defendant, Nagappa, contested, alleging the transactions were benami and that no partition occurred. The trial court and the Additional District Judge found in favor of the plaintiff, confirming the partition and rejecting the benami claim. The High Court, however, reversed the partition finding, holding that a partition should be effected among the plaintiff and the other defendants, and allowed the appeal of the eighth defendant. The Supreme Court held that the High Court could not re‑appreciate factual findings under Section 100 of the CPC where no question of law was raised, and restored the Additional District Judge’s decree, allowing the appeal and permitting the plaintiff to recover possession of the disputed portion.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can interfere with factual findings of a lower court under Section 100 CPC when no question of law is raised.
Whether a partition of the property between the plaintiff and the heirs of Narayanaswamy had taken place in 1952.
Whether the transactions involving Narasimhulu were benami transactions for the benefit of Narayanaswamy.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 100

Subjects

partitionbenami transactionCivil Procedure CodeSection 100 CPCappellate jurisdictionfactual findingsproperty lawinsolvency

Judgment

23S

A E. MAHBOOB SAHEB
v.
N. SUBBARAYAN CHOWDHARY & ORS.

December 18, 1981

8 [V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.J

Second Appeal-When no question of law whatever was agitated btfore
the High Court, the High Court cannot interfere, in second appeal, with the finding
of fact entered by the District Judge in first appeal-Civil Procedure Code,
section JOO, scope of
i
C In the insolvency proceedings half the property of one Allabaksh was :;old
by the Official Receiver to Moola Narayanaswamy in 1939 and the other half to
Narasimhulu in 1945. Subsequently Narasimhulu transferred his interest in the
property in favour of the daughter of Moola Narayanaswamy for a consideration
of Rs. 4,000 under Exh. A-I dated May IO, 1948.

One Nagappa obtained a simple money decree against Moola Narayana-
swamy in O.S. 26/1952 on the file of Sub-Judge Anantaour and in execution
D
thereof, he attached and brought to sale in court auction two houses including
the house purchased by the daughter of Moola Narayanaswamy. In the said
court auction, Nagappa purchased the two houses for a sum of Rs. 2050 and
in enforcement of the sale certificate, he obtained delivery of possession of the
two houses. Since the application No. E.A. 90/58 filed by the daughter of
Narayanaswamy in the Executing Court under Order XX!, Rule 100 C.P.C.
asserting her independent right was dismissed, she filed a suit to set aside the
E said summary order and for recovery of possession of the property which is
described in her plaint 'C' Schedule as falling to her share arising out of a partition
effected in 1952.

During the pendency of the suit, Nagappa sold the northern hmlf of the
property in favour of Mahboob Saheb, the appellant herein, on March 21, 1961
and later, the southern half of the property to N. Subbarayan Chowdhar:y, respon-
F dent No. 1 herein, on June 19, 1961.

Nagappa contested the suit on the ground that Narasimhulu was all along
acting as a benamidar for Narayanaswamy, when he purchased the half share in
court auction in l 944-4 5 and again tranfferrcd the said share in
favour of Narayanaswamy's daughter benami for Narayanaswamy and as such
the sale by the court in his favour was valid.
G
The Trial Court disbelieved the plea of benami taken by Nagappa, found
that the plaintiff was the owner of a half share in her own right, and that there
was no partition by metes and bounds of the entire property brought to sale, by
court auction. The Trial Court, therefore, set aside the summary order passed
in E.A. 90/58 in E.P. 7/56 in OS. 26/52 of the Sub-Judge, Anantapur and a
H preliminary decree for partition of the 'B' Scheduled property by metes and
bounds into the equal shares and for allotment and delivery of one such share
to the plaintiff.
ll. MAflilOOB SAHEB v. N.S. C1IOWOHARY (Balakrishna Eradi, J.) 239
Nagappa's appeal before the District Court (A.S. 173/66) was dismissed and A
the objections of the plaintiff were allowed, and accepting the plea of partition
the District Court granted a decree for recovery of possession of the plaint
'C' Schedule.

In further second appeals, the High Court dismissed Nagappa's appeal on
the plea of benami but reversed the findings of the District,Court as to the
question of partition pleaded by the plaintiff. All,.,wing the appeal of the 8th B
defendant (Respondent No. I herein) the High Court held that it was a case
where a partition of the property should be effected between the plaintiff on the
one hand and the appellant and respondent No. I herein on the other. Hence
the appeal by special leave by 7th defendant Mahboob Saheb.
.,.
Allowing the appeal and leaving the question relating to the rights inte• se
as between appellant and respondent No. I open, the Court c
HELD : I. It was not open to the High Court to reappreciate the evidence

- and substitute its own conclusions in place of those entered by the lower court,
while exercising the jurisdiction conferred by section 100 C.P.C. The finding
entered by the Additional District Judge that a partition had taken place between
the piaintiff and the uther legal heirs of Narayanaswamy in 1952, and as a result
thereof the southern portion of the ·B' Schedule property (plaint 'C' Schedule D
property) had been allotted to the plaintiff's share was based on a detailed con-
• sideration of the legal evidence available on the record. The relevant portions of
the evidence having a bearing on the plea of partition make it clear that the
finding entered by the Additional District Judge cannot be said to be unreasonable
or perverse. No question of law whatever was agitafed before the High Court.
In the circumstances, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere
whh the finding of fact entered by the Additional District Judge. [244F; E, G-H ] E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 854 of
1971.

Appeal by Special leave from the judgment and order dated
the 6th November, 1970 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in F
S.A. Nos. 719 and 826 of 1967.

T. S. Kris!znamoorti Tyer, Mrs. J. Ramachandrnn and K. Ram
Kumar for the Appellant.

P. Govindan Nair, and G. Narasimhulu for Respondent No. J _ G
A. V. Rangam for Respondents 2(c) & (e).

.' B. Parthasarthi for Respondent No. 3.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
240 SUPREME colJltt REPORlS il98ZJ 2 S.C.R..

A BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J. This appeal by special leave is
directed against a judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
in two connected Second Appeals-Second Appeal Nos. 719 and .
'
826 of 1967. Those Second Appeals arose out of a suit filed by
the appellant herein for setting aside the summary order pass1~d in
E.A. No. 90 of 1958 in E.P. 7 of 1956 in O.S. No. 26 of 1952 on
B the file of the Sub-Court, Anantapur, and for recovery of possession
of plaint 'C' Schedule property or, in the alternative, for partition
and recovery of one-half of the property described in the plaint 'B'
Schedule. The plaint 'C' Schedule plot is a southern portion of the
property described in the 'B' Schedule. f'

c The plaint 'B' Schedule property consisting of I acre and 90
cents of land together with two houses situated therein belonged to
one Allabaksh. He was adjudged an insolvent and the Official Re-
ceiver sold a half right in the ~aid property to one Moola
Narayanaswamy under Exh. A-3 dated December 6, 1939. The
remaining half interest in the property belonging to Allabaksh
D was also subsequently brought to sale by the Official Receiver and
one J. Narasimhulu became the purchaser. Exh. A-27 dated
January 5, 1945 is the sale certificate issued in bis favour. The
resultant position was that the 'B' Schedule property came to be
owned in undivided half shares by Moala Narayanaswamy and
J. Narasimbulu. Subsequently, Narasimhulu transferred his interest
E in the property in favour of the plaintiff for a consideration of
Rs. 4,000 under Exh. A-1 dated May JO, 1948. The plaintiff is the
daughter of Moola Narayanaswaixy.

One Nagappa (first defendant) obtained a simple money decree
against Moola Narayanaswamy in O.S . 26/52 on the file of the
F Subordinate Judge's Court, Anantapur, and in execution thereof,
he attached and brought to sale in court auction the two houses
described in the plaint 'B' Schedule property. In the said court
auction, the first defendant purchased the plaint 'B' Sched1Jlc pro-
perty for Rs. 2,050 and in enforcement of the sale certificate, he
obtained delivery of possession of the two houses. Since the judg-
G
ment-debtor, Narayanaswarny, was entitled to only a half interest
in the property, the plaintiff filed E.A. No. 90/58 in the faecuting
Court under Order 21, Rule JOO C.P.C, asserting her independent
rights to the southern half of the property and praying for redelivery
H of the said portion in her favour. That petition was dismissed by
the Sub-Court, Anantapur, by order dated March 11, 1960, and
hence, the plaintiff brought the suit out of which this appeal has
E. MAHBOOB SAHEB v. N.S. CHOWDHARY (Balakrishna Eradi, J.) 241

arisen for setting aside the said summary order and for recovery of A
possession of the southern portion of the property which is described
in the plaint 'C' Schedule.

During the pendency of the suit, the first defenda11t sold the
northern half of the property in favour of the 7th defendant as per
Exh. B-14 dated March 21, 1961. Later, the first defendant trans- H
ferred the southern half of the property to the 8th defendant under
the sale deed (Exh. B-15) dated June 19, 1961.

Reference has been made to the fact that the two sales effected
by the Official Receiver in favour of Narayanaswamy and
Narasimhulu were in respect of un-specified half shares in the plaint c
'B' Schedule property. The basis on which the plaintiff rested her

- claim for recovery of possession of the southern half of the property
was that a partitio:1 had been effected bet ween herself and the heirs
of Narayanaswarny in 1952 and the 'C' Schedule property had been
allotted to her share at the said partition. Defendants 2 to 6, who
are the legal heirs of deceased Narayanaswamy, did not contest the I)
suit. However, the first defendant, who was the main contesting
defendant in the trial court, denied that any such partition had
taken place. .He· put forward the case that in effecting the purchase
of the balance undivided half interest in the property, when it was
brought to sale by the Official Receiver on November 28, 1944,
Narasimhulu was acting as a benamidar for Moala Narayanaswamy E

• and that the ownership in respect of the said half interest also
became vested in Narayanaswamy himself. It was further contended
that the transfer by Narasimhulu in favour of the plaintiff was also
a benami transaction for the benefit of Narayanaswamy and hence,

- the entire property , ad been validly purchased by him at the court
sale held in execution of the money decree obtained by him against
Narayanaswamy in O.S. 26 of 1952 of the Subordinate Court,
F

Anantapur.

The two main issues that arose for determination by the trial
court (court of the Munsif Magistrate, Tadpatri) were (a) whether
the transactions of purchase of the half share in the plaint 'B'
Schedule property by Narasimhulu at the court auction sale and
the subsequent transfer of the same by Narasimhulu to the plaintiff
were benami for the benefit of Narayanaswamy and (b) whether
there was a subsequent partition of the property at which the plain-
tiff was allotted the southern half (plaint 'C' Schedule property). H
On a consideration of the evidence adduced in the case, the trial
court found tllat there was no, fo~nqatioI\ whatever, f o~ th,e \llea, of
242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1982] 2 S.C.R.

A benami put forward by the first defendant, that the plaintiff was
the owner of a half share in the plaint 'B' Schedule property and
that her interest could in no way be effected by the court sale held
in execution of the money decree obtained by the first defendant
against Narayanaswamy. The learned Munsif further held that the
plain tiff had not succeeded in establishing her case that there had
8 been a partition of the property by metes and bounds, at which the
southern half of the property, namely, the plaint 'C' Schedule plot
had been allotted to her share. In view of the aforesaid findings,
the trial court set aside the summary order passed in E.A. 90/58 in
E.P. 7/56 in O.S. 26/52 of the Subordinate Court, Anantapur, and
,
passed a preliminary decree for partition of the plaint 'B' Schedule
c property by metes and bounds into two equal shares and for allot-
ment and delivery of one such share to the plaintiff.

The first defendant carried the matter in appeal before the
District Court, Anantapur (A.S. 173/66) reiterating his contention
-
that the purchase of the half interest in. the plaint 'B' Schedule
D
property by Narasimhulu and the subsequent sale by him to the
plaintiff were benami transactions. The plaintiff filed a memorandum
of cross· objection.s questioning the correctness of the finding entered
against by the Munsif that the plea of partition put forward by her
bad not been proved and praying that in place of decree for partition
granted to her by the Munsif, she may be allowed to recover
E
possession of the plaint 'C' Schedule property after upholding her
prayer regarding the partition.

After a detailed consideration of the oral and documentary
evidence adduced in the case, the learned Additional District Judge,
F who heard the appeal, upheld the finding of the trial court that the
first defendant had totally failed to establish the case put forward by
-
him that the auction purchase effected by Narasimhulu a.nd the
subsequent transfer of the property by Naraf.imhulu to the plaintiff
were both benami transactions intended for the ben-efit of Moola
Narayanaswamy. It was further held by the learned Additional
G District Judge that subsequent to the purchase of the half interest
in the 'B' Schedule property by the plaintiff, there had been a
partition between her and the other heirs of Narayanaswamy in
1952, as pleaded by the plaintiff, and the plaint 'C' Schedule pro-
perty had been allotted to the plaintiff's share at that partition.
H In the light of the aforesaid findings, the appeal filed by the first
defendant was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge,
fhe cross-a bjectjon~ fi/e? ~y the pl11jn tiff were allowed and in modi-
E. MAHBOOB SAHEB v. N.S. CHOWDHARY (Balakrishna Eradi, J.) 243

fication of the decree of the trial court, the plaintiff . was granted a A
decree for recovery of possession of the plaint 'C' Schedule property.

Against the aforesaid judgment of the Additional District
Judge, Anantapur, the first defendant and the 8th defendant filed
two separate Second Appeals before the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh. The two questions raised in those appeals were (a) B
whether the purchase of the property by the plaintiff was benami
for Narayanaswamy and (b) whether a partition of the plaint 'B'
Schedule property had taken place as between the plaintiff and the
heirs of Narayanaswamy, at which the plaintiff gl>t the southern
half thereof.

A learned Single Judge of the High Court disposed of the two
c
Second Appeals by a common judgment, wherein he has discussed
at great length the oral and documentary evidence and entered
findings of his own on the two questions aforementioned. The
learned Judge found that there was no force in the contention put
forward by the first defendant that the half interest in plaint 'B' D
Schedule property was purchased at the court auction sale by
Narasimhulu benami for Narayanaswamy. He also rejected the
further plea put forward by the first defendant that the subsequent
transfer of the property by Narasimhulu to the plaintiff was also a
benami transaction. In consequence, the Second Appeal filed by
the first defendant was dismissed.

., On the second question aforesaid, the learned Judge differed
from the finding of the Additional District Judge and held that the
plaintiff had failed to establish that a partition of the property

- had been effected as between herself and the legal heirs of
Narayanaswamy at which the 'C' Schedule property had been allotted
to her share. The learned Judge then proceeded to hold that the
fact that the first defendant sold to the 7th defendant a specified
F

portion in the north did not necessarily create any right in the 7th
defendant to the particular property and hence this was a case
where a partition of the property should be effected between the
plaintiff on the one hand and the defendants 7th and 8th on the c
other. In view of the said findings, the Second Appeal filed by the
8th defendant was allowed by the learned Judge and the suit was
remanded to the trial court for effecting a partition of the plaint
'B' Schedule property between the plaintiff, the 7th defendant and
the 8th defendant. It is against the said decision of the High H
Court that the 7th defendant has U)\;d. this appeal ;lfter 9bt11inin~
special leave from th.is Court.,
244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1982) 2 S.C.R.

A Two main contentions were advanced by the learned counsel
on behalf of the appellant. Firstly, it was urged that the High
Court has acted illegally and in clear violation of the limitations
imposed by Section 100 C.P.C. in interfering with the finding entered
by the Additional District Judge on the question as to whether or
not there had been a partition between certain parties which is a
8 pure question of fact. The second contention advanced on behalf
of the appellant is that the High Court has committed a grievous
error in omitting to notice that the 7th defendant had not been even
impleaded as a party in the Second Appeal (S.A. 826/67) filed by
the 8th defendant, and that while showing the plaintiff as the sole
respondent in that Second Appeal a categorical statement had been
c made in the memorandum of the Second Appeal that "the other
parties in the courts below are not necessary parties to this appeal".
It was, therefore, contended by the appellant that the High Court
has acted wholly illegally in recording a finding adverse to the 7th
defendant and directing a partition of the entire 'B' Sc·.hedule pro-
--
perty in spite of the fact that the northern plot had been sold to the
D 7th defendant by deceased Narayanaswamy.

After hearing counsel appearing on both sides, w,e have un-
hesitatingly come to the conclusion that both the aforesaid conten-
tions advanced on behalf of the appellant have to be upheld. The
finding entered by the Additional District Judge that a partition had
E
taken place between the plaintiff and the other legal heirs of
Narayanaswamy in 1952, and as a result thereof the southern portion
of the 'B' Schedule property (plaint 'C' Schedule property) had been
allotted to the plaintiff's share was based on a detailed consideration
of the legal evidence available on the record. It was not open to
F the High Court to reappreciate the said evidence and ~ubstitute its
own conclusions in place of those entered by the lower courts while
exercising the jurisdiction conferred by Section 100 C.P.C. The
-
learned counsel appearing on both sides have taken us through the
relevant portions of the evidence having a bearing on the plea of /....__ ......
partition, and we are satisfied that the finding entered by the Addi-
G tional District Judge cannot be said to be unreasonable or perverse.
No question of law whatever was agitated before the High
Court. In the circumstances, there was no justification at all for the
High Court to interfere with the finding of fact enten~d by the
Additional District Judge that there had been a partition between
H the plaintiff and the legal heirs of Narayanaswamy in 1952 at
which the plaint 'C' Schedule property had been allotted to the
~
share of the plaintiff.
•• ' . l '
,
i!. MAHliOOB sAliBli v. N.S. CHOWDl{ARY (Balukrishna Eradi, J.) 245

In this view, it is unnecessary for us to go into the merits of A
the second contention advanced on behalf of the appellant.

In the light of the foregoing discussion, we allow this appeal,
set aside the decision of the High Court and restore the judgment
and decree of the Additional District Judge, permitting the plaintiff
to recover possession of the plaint 'C' Schedule property. We make B
it clear that we are expressing no opinion on the question relating
to the rights inter se as between the defendants 7th and 8th in
respect of the remaining portion of plaint 'B' Schedule property,
and the said matter is left to, open. The parties will bear the
respective costs in this appeal.
c
S.R. Appeal allowed.

-