Practice and Procedure — Article 136 of the Constitution — Interference with concurrent findings of fact — Scope of jurisdiction — Held, the jurisdiction under Article 136 is to be exercised sparingly, particularly where concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by the First Appellate Court and the High Court — Unless such findings are manifestly perverse or based on no evidence, this Court would be slow to interfere — In the present case, no perversity demonstrated — Interference declined. (Paras 16, 17, 24)
The Court reiterated that Article 136 does not confer a regular appellate jurisdiction. Where the High Court and the First Appellate Court have concurrently appreciated documentary and oral evidence and arrived at consistent conclusions, interference is unwarranted unless the findings suffer from perversity. The concurrent findings in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs were found to be based on proper appreciation of pleadings, documentary evidence and admissions.
Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent findings of fact, supported by evidence and free from perversity, are not liable to be disturbed under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Civil Law — Hereditary pujari rights — Competing claims — Effect of earlier decree — Subsequent conduct inconsistent with decree — Filing of suit for possession by party claiming prior decree — Legal inference — Held, institution of a suit for possession by a party asserting prior decree of possession constitutes an admission that possession was not with such party at the relevant time — Subsequent conduct can dilute the practical effect of an earlier decree. (Paras 18, 19, 24)
The appellants relied upon a decree in O.S. No. 287/1901. However, their predecessor instituted O.S. No. 88/1944 seeking possession of the very temple. The Court observed that a party in settled possession does not sue for possession. The filing of the 1944 suit was treated as a categorical admission that possession was not with the appellants’ predecessor at that time. The inconsistency between reliance on the 1901 decree and the subsequent suit seeking possession materially weakened the appellants’ claim.
Ratio Decidendi: Where subsequent conduct of a party is inconsistent with rights claimed under an earlier decree, such conduct can be relied upon to draw adverse inference regarding possession and continuity of asserted rights.
Civil Procedure — Withdrawal of suit with liberty to file fresh suit — Failure to institute fresh suit for prolonged period — Adverse inference — Held, where liberty is obtained to institute a fresh suit but no such suit is filed for over three decades and no explanation is forthcoming, the Court may draw an inference that the party accepted the prevailing factual position. (Para 20)
The appellants’ predecessor withdrew Civil Appeal No. 118 of 1945 with liberty to file a fresh suit, which liberty was granted in 1946. No fresh suit was instituted for approximately thirty-six years. The absence of explanation for such prolonged inaction was treated as significant conduct indicative of acquiescence in the existing state of affairs.
Ratio Decidendi: Prolonged failure to act upon liberty granted to institute a fresh suit, without explanation, permits the drawing of adverse inference against the party asserting rights.
Evidence — Revenue records — Record of Rights (RTC) — Evidentiary value in establishing hereditary service rights — Admissions in cross-examination — Held, revenue entries reflecting grant of land in lieu of temple service and showing names of respondents’ ancestors constitute relevant and cogent evidence — Absence of appellants’ names in such records, coupled with admission of cultivation by respondents, strengthens respondents’ claim. (Paras 21, 22, 24)
The High Court examined RTC entries demonstrating that lands were granted by the British Government in lieu of services rendered to the temple and that the respondents’ ancestors were reflected in such records. The appellants’ names were absent. Further, D.W.1 admitted that the lands were being cultivated by the respondents. The Supreme Court affirmed that these documentary records and admissions constituted substantial evidence supporting the respondents’ hereditary pujari claim.
Ratio Decidendi: Long-standing revenue records indicating service tenure and admissions of cultivation are material evidence in determining hereditary religious service rights.
Pleadings — Necessity of specific pleadings in assertion of hereditary rights — Oral evidence cannot substitute pleadings — Held, a party asserting hereditary rights must plead material particulars including commencement of possession, performance of duties, and interference — In absence of foundational pleadings, oral evidence attempting to supplement deficiencies must be disregarded. (Para 23)
The appellants’ written statement lacked specific pleadings regarding the commencement of possession, performance of puja, and obstruction by respondents. The Court held that a case not pleaded cannot be built solely on oral testimony. Evidence beyond pleadings is impermissible.
Ratio Decidendi: Oral evidence cannot be permitted to fill gaps in pleadings; a party must succeed or fail on the case pleaded.
Conclusion — Hereditary pujari rights — Concurrent findings upheld — Civil Appeals dismissed — No order as to costs. (Paras 24–26)
Upon comprehensive appreciation of the factual matrix, documentary evidence, admissions, and conduct of parties, the Court found no infirmity or perversity in the High Court’s judgment decreeing the suit in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs.
Ratio Decidendi (Composite): In disputes relating to hereditary religious service rights, consistent documentary evidence, revenue records, admissions, and subsequent conduct of parties outweigh reliance on an isolated historical decree; concurrent findings based on such appreciation are not liable to interference under Article 136.
