Case Note & Summary
The case involved an appeal against a judgment of the Bombay High Court which had reversed the decisions of the lower courts regarding a lease dispute. The appellants, Parvatibai and another, sought to set aside the High Court's judgment dated 25.1.2007, which had decreed the suit for recovery of possession filed by the plaintiff, Dwarkadas. The trial court had dismissed the suit after determining that the plaintiff had surrendered the lease of the disputed property to the defendants. This decision was upheld by the appellate court, which confirmed the trial court's findings. The High Court, however, framed a question of law regarding the validity of the lease termination based on verbal assertions and proceeded to re-evaluate the evidence, ultimately reversing the lower courts' findings. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had no basis to interfere with the factual findings as there was no indication of perversity in the lower appellate court's conclusions. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the decision of the lower appellate court.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Reappreciation of Evidence - Legal Permissibility - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 100 - The High Court's power to interfere with findings of fact is limited to cases of perversity. The learned Single Judge re-appreciated evidence without finding any perversity in the lower courts' findings, which is impermissible under law. Held that the appellate court's judgment should be restored (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court could reverse the concurrent finding of fact recorded by two lower courts without finding perversity.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, and restored the judgment of the lower appellate court.
Law Points
- Reappreciation of evidence
- finding of fact
- power under Section 100 CPC
- lease termination
