Case Note & Summary
The case involves a writ petition filed by the petitioners (heirs of the original plaintiff) challenging the concurrent findings of the lower courts in a land dispute. The petitioners sought to set aside the judgments of the trial court and the first appellate court which had dismissed their suit. The High Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, examined the findings of fact recorded by the courts below. The court noted that the findings were based on evidence and were not perverse. The High Court reiterated the limited scope of Article 227, stating that it cannot act as a court of appeal and interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. The court found no such perversity in the impugned judgments and accordingly dismissed the writ petition. The decision upholds the principle that the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is not meant to correct every error of fact or law, but only to prevent grave injustice or abuse of process.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Concurrent Findings of Fact - Scope of Article 227 - The High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The court held that the findings of the lower courts were based on evidence and not perverse, hence no interference was warranted. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts in a land dispute.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact
- limited scope of Article 227
- no perversity in findings
- jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227
