http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SURAIN SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MEHENGA (DEAD) BY LRS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       01/02/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (2) 624        JT 1996 (3)    52  1996 SCALE  (2)214

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                        O R D E R      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:      "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 paid  by them  to      the appellants."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    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.      The appeal  is, therefore,  dismissed. But  in the circumstances, without costs.