9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of High Court in second appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Validity of concurrent findings of fact by lower courts. 3. Admissibility and sufficiency of evidence. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of High Court in Second Appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure: The Supreme Court emphasized that under Article 133(3) of the Constitution, no appeal lies to the Supreme Court from the judgment, decree, or final order of a single judge of a High Court. The Court has consistently discouraged applications for special leave against High Court decisions in second appeals, except where it is shown that the High Court has interfered with questions of fact, contravening Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court reiterated the Privy Council's stance from the case of Mussummat Durga Choudhrain v. Jawahir Singh Choudhri, stating that there is no jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal on the ground of erroneous findings of fact. 2. Validity of Concurrent Findings of Fact by Lower Courts: The trial court and the District Judge had both found in favor of the appellants regarding their title and possession of the suit property within 12 years before the date of the suit. The trial court had considered various pieces of documentary evidence, such as the Changes Register (Exhibit A-8) and cist receipts, to conclude that the appellants had proven their title and possession. The District Judge, upon appeal, upheld these findings, noting that the evidence and circumstances supported the appellants' claims. The Supreme Court observed that these concurrent findings were based on the appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and did not involve any question of law or construction of documents. 3. Admissibility and Sufficiency of Evidence: The High Court judge had set aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts, emphasizing the lack of a sale deed and questioning the genuineness of the documentary evidence. The Supreme Court found this approach erroneous, noting that the certified copy of a public document (Exhibit A-8) did not require further proof and that no objections had been raised regarding the mode of proof in the lower courts. The Supreme Court reiterated that the sufficiency or adequacy of evidence to support a finding of fact is a matter for the courts of fact and cannot be agitated in a second appeal. The High Court's interference on the grounds of sufficiency of evidence was deemed a clear contravention of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's decree and restoring the District Judge's decree with costs throughout. The Court underscored the importance of adhering to the limits prescribed by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, emphasizing that justice according to law must prevail over considerations of equity and fair play.
|
