1

REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.4383 OF 2009

Suresh Kumar through GPA         ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Anil Kakaria & Ors.     .…Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) This  appeal  is  filed  by  the  plaintiff  against  the

judgment  and  order  dated  02.05.2006  passed  by  the

High  Court  of  Punjab  and  Haryana  at  Chandigarh  in

R.S.A.  No.  1522  of  2006  whereby  the  High  Court

dismissed the second appeal filed by the appellant herein

and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2005

passed by  the  Additional  District  Judge,  Panchkula  in

C.A. No.20 of 2005.  

2) The  appellant  is  the  plaintiff  whereas  the

respondents are the defendants in the civil  suit  out  of

1

2

which this appeal arises.

3) The  dispute  in  this  appeal  relates  to  plot  No.28,

measuring 1/4th acre  in Industrial  Area Phase-I  Urban

Estate,  Panchkula(hereinafter  referred  to  as  “the  suit

land”).

4) Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter

referred to as  “HUDA”) had allotted the suit land to one

Shri Ved Prakash Kakaria in the year 1973.  Thereafter

Shri Ved Prakash Kakaria, on 24.04.1980, entered into

an agreement with the appellant to sell the suit land to

him on certain terms and conditions.  

5) On 05.02.1985, Shri Ved Prakash Kakaria expired,

leaving behind two sons and one daughter (respondent

Nos.1  to  3)  as  his  legal  heirs.  Respondent  Nos.1  to  3

however, sold the suit land to respondent No.4.  

6) On 10.10.1992, the appellant filed a suit against the

respondents for a declaration that the transfer made by

respondent Nos.1 to 3 in favour of  respondent No.4 is

null and void and not binding on the appellant, that the

respondents be restrained from interfering in appellant's

possession  over  the  suit  land  as  he  claimed  to  be  in

2

3

possession of the suit  land,  and lastly,  for  issuance of

mandatory  injunction  against  respondent  Nos.1  to  3

directing  them  to  transfer  the  suit  land  in  favour  of

appellant.  

7) The  suit  was  essentially  based  on  an  agreement

dated  24.04.1980  and  the  Will  alleged  to  have  been

executed by late Shri Ved Prakash Kakaria in his favour

for  claiming  the  aforementioned  reliefs  against  the

respondents.  

8) The  respondents  filed  their  respective  written

statements  and  denied  the  plaintiff's  claim.  The

respondents denied the agreement dated 24.04.1980 and

also  denied  the  execution  of  alleged  Will  said  to  have

been executed by Ved Prakash Kakaria in favour of the

plaintiff.  The respondents defended the sale of the suit

land  made  by  respondent  Nos.1  to  3  in  favour  of

respondent  No.4  for  valuable  consideration  and

contended  that  respondent  No.4  was  put  in  its  actual

possession and has also set up their factory over the suit

land and running the same.  

9) The Trial Court framed the issues and the parties

3

4

adduced their evidence.  The Trial Court, by its judgment

and decree dated 22.01.2005, dismissed the suit.  It was

held  that  the  appellant  (plaintiff)  failed  to  prove  the

agreement dated 24.04.1980, that the Will was also not

proved, that respondent Nos.1 to 3 being the owner of the

suit land rightly sold the suit land to respondent No. 4

for consideration, and lastly, that respondent No.4 was in

possession of the suit land and has set up their factory

over the suit land.  

10) Felt aggrieved, the appellant filed first appeal before

the  Additional  District  Judge,  Panchkula.   By

judgment/decree  dated  21.10.2005,  the  First  Appellate

Court  dismissed  the  appeal  and  upheld  the

judgment/decree of the Trial Court.  Felt aggrieved, the

appellant pursued the matter in second appeal before the

High  Court.  The  High  Court,  by  impugned  judgment,

dismissed the second appeal holding that the concurrent

findings  of  two  Courts  below are  binding  on the  High

Court  and  that  the  appeal  does  not  involve  any

substantial question of law under Section 100 of Code of

Civil Procedure.  It is against this judgment of the High

4

5

Court, the appellant (plaintiff) felt aggrieved and filed this

appeal by special leave before this Court.  

11) Heard  Mr.  Jaideep  Gupta,  learned  senior  counsel

for the appellant and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, learned

counsel for the respondents.

12) Having  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  parties

and on perusal of the record of the case including written

submissions, we find no merit in the appeal.

13) In our considered view, the three Courts below have

rightly rendered the aforementioned findings in favour of

the respondents and we find no difficulty in concurring

with the findings which, in our view, do not call for any

interference by this Court.  

14) In our considered opinion, the findings recorded by

the  three  Courts  on  facts,  which  are  based  on

appreciation of evidence undertaken by the three Courts,

are essentially in the nature of concurrent findings of fact

and, therefore, such findings are binding on this Court.

Indeed, such findings were equally binding on the High

Court while hearing the second appeal and it was rightly

held by the High Court also.  

5

6

15) It is more so when these findings were neither found

to be perverse to the extent that no judicial person could

ever record such findings nor these findings were found

to be against the evidence, nor against the pleadings and

lastly, nor against any provision of law.

16) Even apart from what is held above, we are of the

considered  opinion  that  the  appellant's  suit  is  wholly

misconceived and was, therefore, rightly dismissed by the

three Courts below.  We concur with the reasoning of the

Courts below and also add the following three reasons in

addition to what is held by the Courts below.  

17) In the first place, the appellant had no title to the

suit land. All that he had claimed to possess in relation

to the suit land was an agreement dated 24.04.1980 to

purchase the suit land from its owner (Shri Ved Prakash

Kakaria).  The  appellant,  as  mentioned  above,  failed  to

prove  the  agreement.   In  this  view  of  the  matter,  the

appellant had no  prima facie case in his favour to file a

suit nor he had even any locus to file the suit in relation

to the suit land once the agreement was held not proved.

18) Second, the proper remedy of the appellant in this

6

7

case was to file a civil suit against respondent Nos.1 to 3

to  claim  specific  performance  of  the  agreement  in

question in relation to the suit land and such suit should

have been filed immediately after execution of agreement

in the year 1980 or/and within three years from the date

of execution.  It was, however, not done.  The suit was,

however, filed by the appellant almost after 12 years from

the date of agreement and that too it was for declaration

and  mandatory  injunction  but  not  for  specific

performance  of  agreement.   It  was,  in  our  opinion,  a

misconceived suit and was, therefore, rightly dismissed.

19) Third, the suit was otherwise hopelessly barred by

limitation  because,  as  mentioned  above,  the  date  of

agreement is 24.04.1980 whereas the suit was filed on

10.10.1992.  There is nothing to show that the agreement

was to be kept alive for such a long time.  It is apart from

the fact that  the alleged agreement itself  was not  held

proved and, therefore, no suit for claiming any relief in

relation to the suit land could be filed by the appellant.

Even the Will was rightly held not proved by the Courts

below and we are inclined to uphold the finding on this

7

8

issue too.  Indeed when the deceased has two sons and

one  daughter  (respondent  Nos.1-3),  why  should  he

execute a Will in appellant’s favour, who was not related

to him.   

20) We are, therefore, of the view that keeping in view

the  concurrent  findings  of  three  Courts  below,  which

were  rendered  against  the  appellant  (plaintiff)  coupled

with our three reasonings mentioned  supra,  the appeal

has no merit.

21) In view of foregoing discussion, we find no merit in

this  appeal.  The  appeal  thus  fails  and  is  accordingly

dismissed.   

              ………...................................J.

[R.K. AGRAWAL]             

                         …...……..................................J.

        [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] New Delhi; November 06, 2017  

8