Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Narne Rama Murthy v. Ravula Somasundaram And Others

Supreme Court Of India

Aug 17, 2005

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Important Paras

Please sign up to view Important Paras.

Smart Summary (Beta)

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioners filed special leave petitions (SLPs) before the Supreme Court challenging two decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court: (i) a judgment dated 21-12-2001 that dismissed their appeal, and (ii) a judgment dated 4-10-2002 that dismissed their review petition. The underlying dispute concerns an agreement to sell property that the petitioner allegedly entered into both for himself and on behalf of Respondents 1–8, as well as questions regarding possession, consideration, and limitation.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the courts below mis-appreciated or misinterpreted the evidence regarding the petitioner’s role in the agreement to sell and the question of possession.
Whether the civil suit was barred by limitation, including the related issue of adverse possession.
Whether any consideration flowed from Respondents 1–8 toward the purchase price under the agreement to sell.
Whether the trial court rendered a finding on Issue 1, and if not, whether the absence of such a finding vitiated the decision.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

The courts below failed to properly appreciate or interpret the evidence, leading to an erroneous conclusion that the petitioner entered into the agreement on behalf of all parties and delivered possession for all.
After issuing a notice dated 11-9-1976 calling upon Respondents 1–8 to pay their shares, the petitioner allegedly excluded the other respondents, and this factual aspect was overlooked by the lower courts.
The civil suit was barred by limitation, and the courts below should have decided the question of limitation at the outset.
No consideration had flowed from Respondents 1–8 under the agreement to sell.
There was no specific finding on Issue 1 by the trial court, rendering the judgment incomplete.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court found no substance in any of the petitioners’ contentions:

Appreciation of Evidence: The Court agreed with the trial court and the High Court that the evidence demonstrated the petitioner entered into the agreement—and delivered possession—on behalf of all parties.
Notice of 11-9-1976: The assertion that the petitioner cut off the other respondents after the 1976 notice was neither pleaded nor credible, given the petitioner's own statements in contemporaneous documents.
Limitation and Adverse Possession: Limitation was deemed a mixed question of fact and law that could not be decided on the face of the pleadings alone. Once it was factually established that the agreement and possession were on behalf of all, there was no open, hostile, or overt act to support adverse possession. The only alleged hostile act—the 1989 advertisement—was immediately followed by the suit, defeating the limitation defence.
Consideration: The petitioner’s own testimony acknowledged joint payments (“we paid”) for some instalments, contradicting the claim that no consideration flowed from other respondents. Evidence also showed the petitioner lacked sufficient funds in 1967, further undermining his solo-payment claim.
Issue 1 Finding: The Court held that once Issue 5 was decided, the answer to Issue 1 necessarily followed, and the trial court had effectively treated the two issues together.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED: The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions and declined to interfere with the High Court’s judgments. No order as to costs was made.

Implications: The dismissal leaves intact the findings of the trial court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court that the agreement to sell and possession were on behalf of all parties and that the suit was within limitation. The order resolves the dispute between the present parties but sets no new precedent, as it largely turns on factual appreciation rather than novel points of law.

Show all summary ...

Order

1. Heard parties at great length.

2. These special leave petitions are against the judgments of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 21-12-2001 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners and the judgment dated 4-10-2002 dismissing the review petition.

3. We see no substance in the contention that there has been non-appreciation or misinterpretation of evidence. In our view, the courts below have correctly analysed the evidence on record and correctly concluded, on the basis of material on record, that the petitioner had entered into the agreement to sell not just on his own behalf but also on behalf of the other parties. The courts below also have correctly recorded that the possession had been taken on behalf of all.

4. The case sought to be made out that after notice dated 11-9-1976 calling upon Respondents 1 to 8 to pay their shares, the petitioner had cut off the other respondents as they had not paid their share is not even pleaded. In any case it is not believable in view of the various documents wherein the petitioner himself has been stating that the purchase had been made on behalf of all.

5. We also see no substance in the contention that the suit was barred by limitation and that the courts below should have decided the question of limitation. When limitation is the pure question of law and from the pleadings itself it becomes apparent that a suit is barred by limitation, then, of course, it is the duty of the court to decide limitation at the outset even in the absence of a plea. However, in cases where the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and the suit does not appear to be barred by limitation on the face of it, then the facts necessary to prove limitation must be pleaded, an issue raised and then proved. In this case the question of limitation is intricately linked with the question whether the agreement to sell was entered into on behalf of all and whether possession was on behalf of all. It is also linked with the plea of adverse possession. Once on facts it has been found that the purchase was on behalf of all and that the possession was on behalf of all, then, in the absence of any open, hostile and overt act, there can be no adverse possession and the suit would also not be barred by limitation. The only hostile act which could be shown was the advertisement issued in 1989. The suit filed almost immediately thereafter.

6. We also see no substance in the contention that no consideration has flowed from the other respondents. The petitioner in his own evidence-in-chief admits that some amounts were paid jointly. This is clear from the fact that in respect of some payments he uses the word “I paid” but in respect of others he deposes “we paid”. Even otherwise, the contention that no consideration has flowed is contrary to the terms of the agreement. Also the evidence of DW 3 shows that in 1967, when the agreement to sell was entered into, the petitioner had no income and no monies. This also belies his claim that he alone had paid.

7. We also see no substance in the submission of Mr Ramachandran that there is no finding on Issue 1. In our view, once the finding was reached on Issue 5 the answer to Issue 1 followed. Even otherwise, both these issues have been dealt with together and the reasoning given by the trial court for answering these two issues in favour of the respondents applies to both these issues.

8. In view of the above, we see no infirmity in the impugned judgments. We see no reason to interfere. The special leave petitions stand dismissed with no order as to costs.