Summary and Analysis of Kisan Vithoba Aakhade D Thr LRs & Ors vs Suresh Tukaram Nerkar 2025 INSC 1092
1. Heading of the Judgment
Case Name: Kisan Vithoba Aakhade (D) Through Legal Representatives & Others vs Suresh Tukaram Nerkar
Citation: 2025 INSC 1092 (Civil Appeal No. 720 of 2015)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran (Authored by K. Vinod Chandran, J.)
Nature of Case: Civil Appeal challenging a High Court's decision in a Second Appeal, which had reversed the concurrent findings of two lower courts in a property dispute.
2. Related Laws and Sections
The judgment revolves around the interpretation of evidence in civil suits, particularly those related to title and possession of property. The key legal principles involved are:
Principles of Evidence: The standard of proof required to establish title and possession, and the evaluation of documentary evidence (sale deed, revenue records) versus physical acts (dumping waste).
Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 34: This section deals with suits for declaration. The court's discretion to grant a declaratory decree, especially when further relief (like recovery of possession) is available but not claimed.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLI Rule 27: Pertains to the production of additional evidence in Appellate Court.
Jurisdiction of High Court in Second Appeal: The limited scope for a High Court to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts, which can only be done if the findings are deemed "perverse."
3. Basic Judgment Details
Appellants (Original Defendants): The legal heirs of Kisan Vithoba Aakhade (Defendant No. 8) and others (Defendants 9-12).
Respondent (Original Plaintiff): Suresh Tukaram Nerkar.
Subject of Dispute: Ownership and possession of an open plot of land adjacent to the plaintiff's residential building.
Lower Courts' Decisions:
Trial Court: Dismissed the plaintiff's suit for declaration of title and injunction.
First Appellate Court: Upheld the Trial Court's decision, adding that the suit was not maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act as recovery of possession was not sought.
High Court (in Second Appeal): Allowed the appeal, set aside the lower courts' orders, and decreed the plaintiff's suit. It held the lower courts' findings were perverse.Supreme Court's Decision: Dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants. Upheld the judgment of the High Court, confirming the plaintiff's title and right to the property.
4. Explanation of the Judgment
Core Legal Issue
The central question was whether the High Court was justified in reversing the concurrent findings of fact of the two lower courts, which had dismissed the plaintiff's suit for declaration of title and possession over a disputed open plot.
Background Facts
The plaintiff (Respondent) claimed ownership of a property, including a residential building and an adjacent open plot, based on a sale deed (Ex. 81). The suit was filed because the defendants (Appellants) were dumping waste and keeping manure on the open plot, despite objections. The plaintiff sought a declaration of his title and possession, and an injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering.
The main contesting defendant (9th Defendant) claimed that the open plot was part of his ancestral property subject to an oral partition from 1974, and that he had been using it as a dung heap. Crucially, the 8th Defendant and others did not even file a written statement to contest the suit.
The lower courts dismissed the suit, citing a discrepancy in the revenue records (which were corrected during the suit to match the sale deed) and the Commissioner's report which found manure and waste on the plot, which they interpreted as proof of the defendant's possession.
The Supreme Court's Analysis and Reasoning
The Supreme Court thoroughly agreed with the High Court's reasoning and found the conclusions of the lower courts to be flawed. The Court's analysis focused on several key points:
Flawed Interpretation of Possession: The Supreme Court emphasized that the mere presence of manure and waste on a property does not constitute legal possession. The plaintiff's case was that the defendants were trespassing and dumping waste illegally. The Commissioner's report, which noted the waste, actually supported the plaintiff's complaint, not the defendant's claim of lawful possession.
Validity of the Title Deed and Revenue Records: The Court held that the plaintiff's sale deed (Ex. 81) clearly conveyed 150 square metres of land. The subsequent correction of the revenue records to reflect this actual extent was valid. The Trial Court erred in distrusting this correction without any evidence of fraud or illegality. The burden was on the defendants to disprove the corrected records, which they failed to do.
Unsubstantiated Defence Claims: The 9th Defendant's claim of an oral partition in 1974 and common use was rejected outright. The Court noted this was a "bland assertion" made without any pleading, evidence, or examination of witnesses to establish his relationship with the original owner's family or the specifics of the alleged partition. Such an unsubstantiated claim could not override a valid sale deed.
Maintainability of the Suit (Section 34, Specific Relief Act): The Supreme Court rejected the First Appellate Court's view that the suit was not maintainable because recovery of possession was not sought. The Court reasoned that since the defendant failed to prove his own possession, the plaintiff was not required to seek recovery. The plaintiff was only required to prove his own title, which he did through the sale deed.
Perversity of Findings: The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's right to interfere in a Second Appeal because the findings of the lower courts were perverse—meaning they were based on a complete misreading of evidence, ignored vital documents (like the sale deed), and drew irrational conclusions (equating waste dumping with possession).
Non-Contesting Defendants: The Court also noted that most appellants (LRs of Defendant No. 8 and Defendants 10-12) never contested the suit initially. They were therefore not entitled to prosecute an appeal based on the weak defences of the sole contesting defendant (No. 9).
Supreme Court's Directions and Conclusion
The Supreme Court found no merit in the appellants' arguments. It held that the High Court correctly identified the perversity in the lower courts' judgments and rightly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court:
Dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants.
Upheld the judgment and decree of the High Court.
Confirmed the plaintiff's declaration of title and possession over the suit property.
Confirmed the permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's property.