Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned title to and possession of 40 acres of land in Rakatla village, originally owned by Boya Krishnappa and measuring 166 acres in Survey No. 440-B. The appellants claimed that their father, Chinna Venkataramanappa, purchased the 40 acres from Krishnappa about 35 years before the suit, obtained possession, and that the family remained in open, peaceful possession with payment of cist until 1947. The respondent had obtained a mortgage decree against Krishnappa in O.S. No. 94/1940, purchased the entire survey number at court auction in 1943, and allegedly entered the suit land unlawfully in 1947, prompting the appellants to file O.S. No. 72 of 1953 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Anantapur, seeking declaration of title, possession, and mesne profits. The trial court framed issues on title and possession within 12 years, and on the binding nature of the court sale. It examined documentary evidence including changes register entries, cist receipts, and revenue records, rejected the respondent's tenancy theory and allegations of fabricated receipts, and found in favour of the appellants on both title and possession. The District Judge in first appeal concurred. In second appeal before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, a single judge reappreciated the evidence, considered it insufficient to support the findings, and allowed the respondent's appeal, upsetting the concurrent findings of fact. Aggrieved, the appellants obtained special leave from the Supreme Court under Article 133(3) of the Constitution, contending that the High Court had contravened Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court held that the sufficiency or adequacy of evidence is exclusively for the courts of fact, and there is no jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal on the ground of erroneous finding of fact, however gross or inexcusable the error. The High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings on grounds of equity and justice because courts administer justice according to law and equity must yield to clear and express statutory provisions. Relying on Mussummat Durga Choudhrain v. Jawahir Singh Choudhri, Deity Pattabhiramasiqwamy v. S. Hanymayya, and R. Ramachandra Ayyar v. Ramalingam, the Court emphasized its duty to intervene whenever a High Court contravenes the limits of Section 100 CPC. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court were restored.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Scope of Section 100 CPC - Sufficiency of Evidence - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 100 - The trial court and first appellate court concurrently found that appellants had title and possession within 12 years based on documentary and oral evidence. The High Court in second appeal reappreciated evidence and upset findings on the ground that evidence was insufficient. Held that sufficiency or adequacy of evidence is for courts of fact and cannot be agitated in second appeal; no jurisdiction to entertain second appeal on ground of erroneous finding of fact however gross or inexcusable. (Paras 1-8) B) Equity and Justice - Limitations on Judicial Discretion - Equity Must Yield to Express Statutory Provisions - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 100 - The High Court interfered with concurrent findings on grounds of equity and justice. Held that courts administer justice according to law, and considerations of fair play and equity must yield to clear and express provisions of law; extra-legal equity cannot be applied to override Section 100 CPC. (Paras 1-8) C) Special Leave Petition - Appeal from Single Judge of High Court - Article 133(3) of Constitution of India - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 133(3) - Normally no appeal lies from a single judge of a High Court, but special leave may be granted when the High Court contravenes Section 100 CPC by interfering with findings of fact in second appeal. Held that in such cases, the Supreme Court should intervene to give effect to Section 100. (Paras 1-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by reappreciating evidence and interfering with concurrent findings of fact based on insufficiency of evidence; whether equitable considerations could override the express statutory limitations of Section 100 CPC.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and restored the concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court, holding that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC by reappreciating evidence and interfering with findings of fact.
Law Points
- Sufficiency of evidence for finding of fact is exclusive domain of trial and first appellate courts
- no second appeal lies on ground of erroneous finding of fact
- equity must yield to express statutory provisions
- Section 100 CPC limits High Court jurisdiction in second appeals
- special leave may be granted when single judge of High Court contravenes Section 100 CPC
