Case Note & Summary
The case involved a dispute over easementary rights claimed by the plaintiffs, Seba Banerjee and others, against the respondents, Nirmala Das and others. The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for declaration of easementary right by way of necessity, prescription, and grant. This dismissal was upheld by the first appellate court. However, the High Court, in a second appeal, reversed the findings of the lower courts and decreed the plaintiffs' suit without framing a substantial question of law. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court acknowledged the principle that concurrent findings of fact by two lower courts cannot be disturbed in a second appeal. Despite this acknowledgment, the High Court proceeded to re-evaluate the evidence and facts, which the Supreme Court found impermissible. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the decisions of the trial court and first appellate court, allowing the appeals without costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Reversal of Concurrent Findings - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section Not mentioned - High Court reversed the concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court without framing a substantial question of law, which is impermissible. The Supreme Court restored the orders of the trial court and first appellate court, emphasizing the need to respect concurrent findings of fact (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in reversing the concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court without framing a substantial question of law.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the orders of the trial court and first appellate court, allowing the appeals without costs.
Law Points
- Easementary rights
- Second appeal
- Concurrent findings
- Re-appreciation of evidence
