Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Laxman N. Deshmukh, filed Regular Civil Suit No. 394 of 1983 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Satara, seeking possession of a shed situated on CTS No. 269/6 at Bhavani Peth, Satara. The suit property was originally an open space owned by the Satara Municipality, let out to Dadu Shripati Pawar prior to 1960, who constructed a shed. The petitioner claimed to have purchased the shed on 15th September 1966 and conducted a cycle repair shop, paying rent to the Municipality initially at Rs.8.90, later increased to Rs.12 and then Rs.15 from 1975. The respondent, Madhukar B. Deshmukh, a relative, was allegedly engaged to work in the shop but later illegally entered his name in municipal records. The petitioner filed a complaint on 29th March 1977, and the Standing Committee resolved on 25th June 1977 that the petitioner was the tenant, but later on 21st November 1980 directed him to approach the civil court. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. The petitioner appealed to the District Court, Satara, which dismissed the appeal. The petitioner then filed a civil revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before the Bombay High Court. The legal issue was whether the High Court could interfere with concurrent findings of fact. The petitioner argued that the findings were perverse and based on no evidence, while the respondent contended that the findings were based on evidence and not open to revision. The court analyzed the evidence and found that the trial court and appellate court had appreciated the evidence, including the petitioner's failure to prove title or possession, and the respondent's possession. The court held that the findings were not perverse and did not suffer from any jurisdictional error, and therefore dismissed the revision application.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Revision - Section 115 CPC - Interference with findings of fact - The High Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless the findings are perverse, without jurisdiction, or based on no evidence - The court held that the findings of the courts below were based on appreciation of evidence and were not shown to be perverse or suffering from any jurisdictional error (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the appellate court.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the civil revision application, holding that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below were not perverse and did not suffer from any jurisdictional error, and therefore no interference was warranted under Section 115 CPC.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Section 115 CPC
- Interference with findings of fact
- Perversity
- Jurisdictional error
