Damodar Lal Vs. Sohan Devi & Ors.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100
Second Appeal - Concurrent Findings of Fact - Substantial question of law - Both the questions of law framed by the High Court not substantial questions of law -Even if the finding of fact is wrong, that by itself will not constitute a question of law - Wrong finding should stem out on a complete misreading of evidence or it should be based only on conjectures and surmises - Safest approach on perversity is the classic approach on the reasonable man's inference on the facts - To him, if the conclusion on the facts in evidence made by the court below is possible, there is no perversity - If not, the finding is perverse. Inadequacy of evidence or a different reading of evidence is not perversity.
Second Appeal - Concurrent Findings of Fact - Substantial Question of Law - Structural alternation in premises rented to the respondent without consent - Burden has been successfully discharged by the plaintiff by examining PWs-1 and 2 - defendants could not shake that evidence - In fact, that fact is proved partially from the evidence of the defendants themselves, as an admitted fact - Hence, only the trial court came to the definite finding on structural alteration - That finding has been endorsed by the first appellate court onre-appreciation of the evidence - High Court in second appeal not justified in upsetting the finding which is a pure question of fact - Impugned judgment of the High Court liable to be set aside and e that of the trial court as confirmed by the appellate court restored.
Topic(s)-Second Appeal - Concurrent Findings of Fact - Upsetting set aside