- (1.) Dasari Navanecthamu filed a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the respondent-defendant from interfering with his possession in respect of the land in dispute. The trial court decree the suit which was upheld by the lower appellate court. The High Court, however, reversed the courts below, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit of the appellant. This appeal by way of special leave is against the judgment of the High Court.
(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and are of the view that the High Court, in second appeal, was not justified in reversing the concurrent findings of the courts below. The lower appellate court discussed the documentary evidence produced by the appellant-plaintiff in the following words:- "Following are the documents filed by the plaintiffs. Ex.Al is the cist receipt dated 3.8.70 Ex.A2 is the cist receipt dated 7.9.70. These two receipts show that the village munsiff collected revenue from the plaintiff for Fasli 1377, 1378 and 1379. Ex.A3 is the entry in the membership register of this society. Ex.A4 is the counter foil of a receipt dated 20.12.69 evidencing payment of Rs.10.50ps by the plaintiff. Ex.A5 is the corresponding entry in the cash book. Ex.A6 is the stated to be an entry into the minutes book of the society admitting the plaintiff as a member. Ex.A7 contains by-laws of the society".
(3.) After discussing the evidence of both sides the lower appellate court upheld the judgment and decree of the trial court. Before the High Court the respondent-appellant did not raise any question of law and only asked for re-appreciation of the evidence. The High Court reversed the concurrent findings of the two courts below on the following reasoning:- "Essentially the question that has to be considered is whether the plaintiff discharged the burden of proving that she has been in possession of the lands. As stated already, the only evidence relied upon by the plaintiff is the cist receipts. Cist receipts constitute slender piece of evidence in support of possession. Whatever may be the truth, validity, and the effect of the evidence adduced by the defendants, the plaintiff has to prove the possession satisfactorily and conclusively. The issuance of the cist receipts itself in the circumstances is doubtful in view of the fact that the cist receipts were filed in close proximity to the date of allotment and the admission of the plaintiff as member of the society. In the absence of the cist receipts, there is absolutely no other evidence". We are of the view that the High Court fell into patent error in reappreciating the evidence and substituting its findings on pure question of fact concluded by the two courts below. Even otherwise the High Court was not correct in holding that apart from the cist receipts there was no other evidence produced by the appellant-plaintiff. It is obvious from the judgment of the lower appellate court, quoted above, that the appellant-plaintiff produced documentary evidence to show that he was a member of the society, the land in dispute was given to her by the society and she had been paying in respect of the said land. In the facts and circumstances of this case the High Court should not have interfered with the findings reached by the courts below.;