Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Anthony Jose Nazareth Rodrigues and others, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji, and confirmed by the District Judge, Panaji, in a suit for declaration and injunction. The suit was filed by the respondents (original plaintiffs) seeking a declaration that they were the owners of the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with their possession. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondents, and the first appellate court confirmed the decree. The petitioners then approached the High Court contending that the findings of fact recorded by the courts below were perverse and not based on evidence. The High Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, held that the concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with under Article 227 unless there is a perverse finding or an error of law apparent on the face of the record. The court found that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any such error. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Concurrent Findings of Fact - Scope of Interference under Article 227 - The High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a perverse finding or error of law apparent on the face of the record - The petitioners failed to demonstrate any such error in the impugned judgment - Held that the writ petition is devoid of merits and dismissed (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below in a suit for declaration and injunction.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Scope of Article 227
- Interference with findings of fact
- Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (12) 88
Writ Petition No. 80 of 2011
Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias with Ms. J. Fernandes for petitioners; Mr. V. P. Thali for respondent nos. 2 to 8
Anthony Jose Nazareth Rodrigues and others
Smt. Manikbai S. Vagle (since deceased through legal heirs) and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging concurrent findings of fact in a civil suit for declaration and injunction.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to quash the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji, and confirmed by the District Judge, Panaji.
Filing Reason
Petitioners contended that the findings of fact recorded by the courts below were perverse and not based on evidence.
Previous Decisions
The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondents, and the first appellate court confirmed the decree.
Issues
Whether the High Court under Article 227 can interfere with concurrent findings of fact.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the findings of fact recorded by the courts below were perverse and not based on evidence.
Respondents contended that the concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with under Article 227.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a perverse finding or error of law apparent on the face of the record.
Judgment Excerpts
The concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India unless there is a perverse finding or an error of law apparent on the face of the record.
The petitioners have failed to demonstrate any such error in the impugned judgment.
Procedural History
The respondents filed a suit for declaration and injunction before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji, which was decreed. The petitioners appealed to the District Judge, Panaji, who confirmed the decree. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 227
