18 March 2009
Supreme Court
Download

BHAKUADAS Vs NANKIBAI

Case number: C.A. No.-007102-007102 / 2001
Diary number: 18394 / 2000
Advocates: VARINDER KUMAR SHARMA Vs


1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7102 OF 2001

Bhakuadas & Ors. ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Nankibai & Anr. ...Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The Trial Court decreed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of

possession filed by the plaintiff-appellants after recording a categorical finding that

Mohandas had not married Nankibai  (respondent herein)  and as such she cannot

have any right in the joint property.  The Lower Appellate Court agreed with the

aforesaid  conclusions  of  the  Trial  Court  and  dismissed  the  appeal  preferred  by

Nankibai.   However, the High Court allowed the Second Appeal and set aside the

judgments and decrees of the two courts by observing that they lost the sight of the

fact that Nankibai was living with Mohandas and this was sufficient to show that she

was married to him.

We have been taken through the judgments of the Courts below and the

High Court.  In our view, the finding of fact recorded by the Trial Court, which was

confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court that marriage of Nankibai with Mohandas

has not been proved, was based on a correct appreciation of the  evidence  produced

by the parties and the High Court was

....2/-

2

- 2 -

not justified in upsetting the said finding in Second Appeal without even coming to

the conclusion that the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the courts below was

perverse.   We are  further  of  the  view that  High  Court’s  finding  on  the  issue  of

marriage  of  Nankibai  with  Mohandas  is  based  on  surmises.   The  mere  fact  that

Nankibai was living with Mohandas, cannot, by any stretch of imagination, lead to a

conclusion that they were married.     

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned order rendered by the High

Court is set aside and the same passed by the Lower Appellate Court is restored.

No costs.

......................J.       [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.       [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, March 18, 2009.