1992 (7) TMI 339 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of provisions of Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981
- Validity of findings of fact by lower appellate court
- Application of Section 100 of the CPC in Second Appeal
- Correct approach by High Court in setting aside findings of fact
- Remand of the matter for fresh decision by the first appellate court

Analysis:
The appellant filed a suit seeking a declaration of thika tenancy under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1981, based on long possession of the suit property. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court decreed it in favor of the appellant. The respondent then filed a Second Appeal in the High Court under Section 100 of the CPC, challenging the findings of fact. The High Court allowed the Second Appeal, setting aside the first appellate court's findings due to alleged errors in fact-finding. However, the High Court failed to consider all the evidence on record and abruptly dismissed the suit, stating the plaintiff's success should be based on the strength of their case, not the weakness of the defense.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court was correct in reviewing the findings of fact but erred in not remanding the matter for a fresh decision by the first appellate court. The Court emphasized that the High Court, after setting aside the findings, should either remand the case for re-hearing or decide it finally under Section 103(b) of the CPC. The Court highlighted that a mere error in the lower court's findings does not automatically lead to a contrary finding; a thorough review of all evidence is necessary. Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the High Court and the first appellate court, and remitted the matter to the first appellate court for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. The costs were to abide by the final outcome of the case.