T. Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead) Thr. LRs. v. N. Madhava Rao
Background
A family's land was inherited by several brothers as co-sharers. The plaintiffs (sons of one brother) sued the defendants (who had purchased a share of the land from another brother) seeking a perpetual injunction to stop interference with their claimed possession of the suit property. The trial court and the first appellate court both dismissed the suit, finding the plaintiffs had not proved exclusive possession, but the High Court of Andhra Pradesh reversed this in a second appeal and granted the injunction, prompting the purchasers to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was wrong to interfere with the "concurrent findings of fact" reached by both lower courts, since a second appellate court can only disturb such findings if they violate the law, ignore the evidence, or are wholly perverse: none of which applied here. On the merits, the Court explained a settled principle of property law: possession by one co-sharer is treated as possession on behalf of all co-sharers, so one co-sharer cannot claim an injunction against another co-sharer (or a purchaser who steps into that co-sharer's shoes) without proving a clear ouster or denial of rights over a long period. Since the defendants had lawfully purchased their share from a co-owner and the plaintiffs failed to prove exclusive possession, the Court restored the trial court's and first appellate court's dismissal of the suit, setting aside the High Court's order.
Lesson Learnt
Co-owners of inherited family property cannot get an injunction against each other simply by claiming possession: one co-sharer's possession legally benefits all co-sharers, and courts are reluctant to overturn consistent factual findings reached by two lower courts unless there is a clear legal error.