Case: AZGAR BARID (D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS Vs. MAZAMBI @ PYAREMABI AND OTHERS

after the death of his first wife Noorbi, Mohiyuddin Pasha had married Mazambi @ Pyarembi- plaintiff No.3 and plaintiff Nos.4 to 8 were born out of the said wedlock. While arriving at such a finding, the trial court has relied on oral as well as documentary evidence. The trial court further came to a finding that from the judgment passed in an earlier suit for partition i.e. O.S. No.514/1961, it was clear that Mohiyuddin Pasha as well as the appellant herein--defendant No.1 had taken a specific stand in O.S. No.514/1961 that the said Mehar Deed was a nominal one and was never acted upon. It was also contended in the said suit that the properties were never handed over to the first wife Noorbi and that it was created with a view to avoid the share to the first son Rahaman Barid. 25. These findings of fact were reversed by the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court held that plaintiff No.3 had failed to prove that she was married to Mohiyuddin Pasha, since she had failed to produce any documentary evidence in support thereof. It further held that plaintiff Nos.4 to 8 had failed to establish that they were the children of deceased Mohiyuddin Pasha. It was held that neither plaintiff No.3 nor plaintiff Nos.4 to 8 were entitled to any share in the suit schedule properties. Insofar as plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, the First Appellate Court held that since they were claiming through Rahaman Barid, who died in 1945 i.e. prior to Mohiyuddin Pasha, who died in 1964, they are also not entitled to any share in the suit schedule properties. 26. While holding that the finding of the First Appellate Court that Mazambi @ Pyarembi--plaintiff No.3 was not married to Mohiyuddin Pasha was erroneous in law, the High Court has mainly relied on the oral as well as the documentary evidence. 27. Syed Ahmed Ali--PW--1, who was aged 75 years at the time of giving evidence, was the brother of Noorbi, first wife of Mohiyuddin Pasha. As such, he was a maternal uncle of the appellant herein--defendant No.1. He has clearly and emphatically deposed that Mohiyuddin Pasha had two wives i.e. Noorbi and Mazambi @ Pyarembi. He has further deposed that after the death of his sister Noorbi, Mohiyuddin Pashaa took Mazambi @ Pyarembi as his second wife. He has also specifically deposed that he has attended the marriage of Mazambi @ Pyarembi--plaintiff No.3 with Mohiyuddin Pasha. The High Court found that in spite of searching cross- examination, nothing came on record to discard the evidence of PW--1. It was further found that the evidence of PW--1 was supported by Nabi Sab--PW--2, who was also an independent witness. Appenna--PW--3, who was also an independent witness, supported the case of the plaintiffs. 28. The High Court found that the voluminous documents of evidence including the birth certificates of plaintiff Nos.4 to 8, the transfer certificates issued by the Government Higher Primary School, Thadigol and Higher Primary Boys School, Thadigol, established that plaintiff Nos.4 to 8 were the children born to Mohiyuddin Pasha through Mazambi @ Pyarembi. We are of the view that, the High Court rightly interfered with the findings as recorded by the First Appellate Court, inasmuch as the First Appellate Court was not justified in reversing the findings of the trial court in that regard which were based on proper appreciation of evidence. We are of the view that the First Appellate Court had failed in appreciating the evidence in correct perspective. The High Court was justified in reversing the same. 29. Similarly, the High Court found that the Mehar Deed in favour of deceased Noorbi, first wife of Mohiyuddin Pasha, was a nominal one and was not acted upon and the reversal of the findings of the trial court by the First Appellate Court in that regard, was erroneous. It will be relevant to note that the trial court, on the basis of the proceedings in the earlier suit for partition i.e. O.S. No.514/1961, had found that in the said suit for partition, deceased Mohiyuddin Pasha was defendant No.1, whereas the appellant herein--defendant No.1 was defendant No.2. In the said suit, the case pleaded by them was that the first son of Noorbi and Mohiyuddin Pasha, namely Rahaman Barid, was demanding separate share in the properties and was residing separately. It was therefore contended by them in their respective written statements that to avoid any share in the suit schedule properties, deceased Mohiyuddin Pasha had created the Mehar Deed in favour of his first wife Noorbi. The High Court found that in view of the findings arrived in the said O.S. No.514/1961, which were based on the admission of Mohiyuddin Pasha and the appellant herein--defendant No.1 herein, it was not open for the appellant herein--defendant No.1 again to contend that the properties belonged to Noorbi exclusively as they were given to her in Mehar. The High Court further found that the appellant herein--defendant No.1 himself had produced the judgment in O.S. No.514/1961 at Ex.D-16 and relied upon the same for opposing the present suit for partition. 30. It could thus clearly be seen that in the present case, the First Appellate Court had reversed the findings recorded by the trial court which were based upon correct appreciation of evidence. The High Court has given sound and cogent reasons as to why an interference with the findings of the First Appellate Court was required. We also find that the First Appellate Court has failed to take into consideration the voluminous oral as well as documentary evidence, on the basis of which the trial court had recorded its findings. The findings as recorded by the First Appellate Court are based on conjectures and surmises. As such, we are of the considered view that the perverse approach of the First Appellate Court in arriving at the findings would give rise to a substantial question of law, thereby justifying the High Court to interfere with the same.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]This Court in the cases of Bhagwan Swaroop and Others v. Mool Chand and Others (1983) 2 SCC 132  and Dr. P. Nalla Thampy Thera v. B.L. Shanker and Others 1984 (Supp) SCC 631, has held that in a suit for partition, the position of the plaintiff and the defendant can be interchangeable. Each party adopts the same position with the other parties. It has been further held that so long as the suit is pending, a defendant can ask the Court to transpose him as a plaintiff and a plaintiff can ask for being transposed as a defendant.13. This Court in the case of Chandramohan Ramchandra Patil and Others v. Bapu Koyappa Patil (Dead) Through LRs and Others (2003) 3 SCC 552,  has held thus:14. Order 41 Rule 4 of the Code enables reversal of the decree by the court in appeal at the instance of one or some of the plaintiffs appealing and it can do so in favour of even non--appealing plaintiffs. As a necessary consequence such reversal of the decree can be against the interest of the defendants vis-à- vis non--appealing plaintiffs. Order 41 Rule 4 has to be read with Order 41 Rule 33. Order 41 Rule 33 empowers the appellate court to do complete justice between the parties by passing such order or decree which ought to have been passed or made although not all the parties affected by the decree had appealed.15. In our opinion, therefore, the appellate court by invoking Order 41 Rule 4 read with Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code could grant relief even to the non- appealing plaintiffs and make an adverse order against all the defendants and in favour of all the plaintiffs. In such a situation, it is not open to urge on behalf of the defendants that the decree of dismissal of suit passed by the trial court had become final inter se between the non--appealing plaintiffs and the defendants.14. In that view of the matter, we find that the contention raised on behalf of the appellant with regard to plaintiff Nos.4 to 8 being not entitled to relief in the second appeal on the ground that they have not challenged the judgment and decree of the trial court before the First Appellate Court, is not sustainable. As held by this Court in the case of Chandramohan Ramchandra Patil (supra), the trial court could grant relief even to the non--appealing plaintiffs and make an adverse order against all the defendants and in favour of all the plaintiffs. Merely because the trial court had not granted relief in favour of plaintiff Nos.4 to 8, would not come in their way in the High Court allowing their claim.16. In this respect, it will be relevant to refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur v. Punjab State Electricity Board and Others (2010) 13 SCC 216 :27. There is no prohibition on entertaining a second appeal even on a question of fact provided the court is satisfied that the findings of fact recorded by the courts below stood vitiated by non- consideration of relevant evidence or by showing an erroneous approach to the matter i.e. that the findings of fact are found to be perverse. But the High Court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings of fact in a routine and casual manner by substituting its subjective satisfaction in place of that of the lower courts. (Vide Jagdish Singh v. Natthu Singh [(1992) 1 SCC 647  : AIR 1992 SC 1604 ] ; Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Anjuman-E- Ismail Madris-Un-Niswan [(1999) 6 SCC 343  : AIR 1999 SC 3067 ] and Dinesh Kumar v. Yusuf Ali [(2010) 12 SCC 740  : AIR 2010 SC 2679 ] .)28. If a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then the finding is rendered infirm in the eye of the law. If the findings of the Court are based on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly unreliable or evidence that suffers from the vice of procedural irregularity or the findings are such that no reasonable person would have arrived at those findings, then the findings may be said to be perverse. Further if the findings are either ipse dixit of the Court or based on conjecture and surmises, the judgment suffers from the additional infirmity of non-application of mind and thus, stands vitiated. (Vide Bharatha Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan [(2010) 11 SCC 483  : AIR 2010 SC 2685 ] .)18. Recently, this Court in the case of K.N. Nagarajappa and Others v. H. Narasimha Reddy 2021 SCC OnLine SC 694, to which one of us (L.N. Rao, J.) was a party, has observed thus:17. In a recent judgment of this court, Narayan Sitaramji Badwaik (Dead) Through Lrs. v. Bisaram 2021 SCC OnLine SC 319, this court observed as follows, in the context of High Courts jurisdiction to appreciate factual issues under Section 103 IPC:11. A bare perusal of this section clearly indicates that it provides for the High Court to decide an issue of fact, provided there is sufficient evidence on record before it, in two circumstances. First, when an issue necessary for the disposal of the appeal has not been determined by the lower Appellate Court or by both the Courts below. And second, when an issue of fact has been wrongly determined by the Court(s) below by virtue of the decision on the question of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.18. In the opinion of this court, in the present case, the High Court recorded sound and convincing reasons why the first appellate courts judgment required interference. These were entirely based upon the evidence led by the parties on the record. The appreciation of evidence by the first appellate court was on the basis of it having overlooked material facts, such as appreciation of documentary and oral evidence led before the trial court, that the execution of Ex.D-3 was denied……27. Syed Ahmed Ali--PW--1, who was aged 75 years at the time of giving evidence, was the brother of Noorbi, first wife of Mohiyuddin Pasha. As such, he was a maternal uncle of the appellant herein--defendant No.1. He has clearly and emphatically deposed that Mohiyuddin Pasha had two wives i.e. Noorbi and Mazambi @ Pyarembi. He has further deposed that after the death of his sister Noorbi, Mohiyuddin Pashaa took Mazambi @ Pyarembi as his second wife. He has also specifically deposed that he has attended the marriage of Mazambi @ Pyarembi--plaintiff No.3 with Mohiyuddin Pasha. The High Court found that in spite of searching cross- examination, nothing came on record to discard the evidence of PW--1. It was further found that the evidence of PW--1 was supported by Nabi Sab--PW--2, who was also an independent witness. Appenna--PW--3, who was also an independent witness, supported the case of the plaintiffs.28. The High Court found that the voluminous documents of evidence including the birth certificates of plaintiff Nos.4 to 8, the transfer certificates issued by the Government Higher Primary School, Thadigol and Higher Primary Boys School, Thadigol, established that plaintiff Nos.4 to 8 were the children born to Mohiyuddin Pasha through Mazambi @ Pyarembi. We are of the view that, the High Court rightly interfered with the findings as recorded by the First Appellate Court, inasmuch as the First Appellate Court was not justified in reversing the findings of the trial court in that regard which were based on proper appreciation of evidence. We are of the view that the First Appellate Court had failed in appreciating the evidence in correct perspective. The High Court was justified in reversing the same.29. Similarly, the High Court found that the Mehar Deed in favour of deceased Noorbi, first wife of Mohiyuddin Pasha, was a nominal one and was not acted upon and the reversal of the findings of the trial court by the First Appellate Court in that regard, was erroneous. It will be relevant to note that the trial court, on the basis of the proceedings in the earlier suit for partition i.e. O.S. No.514/1961, had found that in the said suit for partition, deceased Mohiyuddin Pasha was defendant No.1, whereas the appellant herein--defendant No.1 was defendant No.2. In the said suit, the case pleaded by them was that the first son of Noorbi and Mohiyuddin Pasha, namely Rahaman Barid, was demanding separate share in the properties and was residing separately. It was therefore contended by them in their respective written statements that to avoid any share in the suit schedule properties, deceased Mohiyuddin Pasha had created the Mehar Deed in favour of his first wife Noorbi. The High Court found that in view of the findings arrived in the said O.S. No.514/1961, which were based on the admission of Mohiyuddin Pasha and the appellant herein--defendant No.1 herein, it was not open for the appellant herein--defendant No.1 again to contend that the properties belonged to Noorbi exclusively as they were given to her in Mehar. The High Court further found that the appellant herein--defendant No.1 himself had produced the judgment in O.S. No.514/1961 at Ex.D-16 and relied upon the same for opposing the present suit for partition.30. It could thus clearly be seen that in the present case, the First Appellate Court had reversed the findings recorded by the trial court which were based upon correct appreciation of evidence. The High Court has given sound and cogent reasons as to why an interference with the findings of the First Appellate Court was required. We also find that the First Appellate Court has failed to take into consideration the voluminous oral as well as documentary evidence, on the basis of which the trial court had recorded its findings. The findings as recorded by the First Appellate Court are based on conjectures and surmises. As such, we are of the considered view that the perverse approach of the First Appellate Court in arriving at the findings would give rise to a substantial question of law, thereby justifying the High Court to interfere with the same.