Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.100 – Punjab Courts Act, 1918 – Suit filed by respondents / plaintiffs alleging that defendant Nos. 2 to 4 broke the lintel portion of the roof (of the first floor of the building) illegally with intention to take forcible possession of the plaintiffs’ house constructed on the first floor; and further secretly constructed a staircase – Trial court and first appellate court after considering the evidence on record – including the report of a local commissioner who had visited the site – dismissed the suit – Second appeal – High Court, framed substantial question of law, as required by s.100 CPC and answered it in favour of the plaintiffs, consequently resulting in decree of the suit – Justification of – Held: Not justified – The Local Commissioner ’s report corroborated the respondents/ plaintiffs’ case that a staircase did not exist, or rather that it was in the stage of construction and was not completed – The report also bore out the plaintiffs’ allegation that holes had been made in the lintel of the roof – Furthermore, the dimensions of the chaubara, as found by the Local Commissioner, differed from what was stated by the second defendant – The lower courts ignored the evidence – in the form of the Local Commissioner’s report – with regard to the issue of possession of the chaubara – The Local Commissioner was neither cross-examined, nor was his report objected to – Mere findings of fact cannot be interfered with in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction given the three limbs of jurisdiction available u/s.41 of the Punjab Courts Act – Findings of fact which are unreasonable, or which are rendered by overlooking the record, therefore, per se do not appear to fall within the scope of second appellate review by the High Court – On facts, High Court’s findings – which are based entirely on re-appreciation of the record – and consequent interference with the concurrent findings of the lower courts, cannot be upheld.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. The Local Commissioner’s report corroborated the respondents/plaintiffs’ case that a staircase did not exist, or rather that it was in the stage of construction and was not completed. The report also bore out the plaintiffs’ allegation that holes had been made in the lintel of the roof. Furthermore, the dimensions of the chaubara, as found by the Local Commissioner, differed from what was stated by the second defendant. [Para 14] [245-G]
2. From the evidence, it is apparent that undeniably second defendant’s possession – and perhaps even ownership of the ground floor shop, could not be denied. The findings of the lower courts, therefore, based upon the registered documents cannot be faulted. However, both these courts ignored the other evidence – in the form of the Local Commissioner’s report – with regard to the issue of possession of the chaubara. The Local Commissioner was neither crossexamined, nor was his report objected to. [Para 15][245-H; 246A-B]
3. Mere findings of fact cannot be interfered with, in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction given the three limbs of jurisdiction available under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act. Findings of fact which are unreasonable, or which are rendered by overlooking the record, therefore, per se do not appear to fall within the scope of second appellate review by the High Court. In these circumstances, the High Court’s findings – which are based entirely on the reappreciation of the record – and consequent interference with the concurrent findings of the lower courts, cannot be upheld. [Para 18][248-C-D] Pankajakshi v. Chandrika (2016) 6 SCC 157 : [2016]
3 SCR 1018 – followed.
Kulwant Kaur v Gurdial Singh Mann (2001) 4 SCC
262 : [2001] 2 SCR 525 – held overruled.
Dhanpat v. Sheo Ram (2020) 16 SCC 209 ; Randhir Kaur v. Prithvi Pal Singh (2019) 17 SCC 71 : [2019]
9 SCR 776 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.