Case Note & Summary
The present Letters Patent Appeal arises from a judgment and decree passed by a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in First Appeal No. 133/1976, which affirmed the decree of the trial court in a suit for possession and mesne profits. The original plaintiffs (respondents) had filed the suit seeking possession of certain properties and mesne profits from the defendants (appellants). The trial court decreed the suit, and the defendants appealed to the High Court in First Appeal No. 133/1976. The Single Judge dismissed the first appeal, upholding the trial court's findings. Aggrieved, the defendants filed the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The core legal issue was whether the Letters Patent Appeal against concurrent findings of fact could be entertained. The appellants argued that the findings were perverse and against the evidence. The respondents contended that the appeal did not raise any substantial question of law and that the concurrent findings of fact were binding. The Division Bench, after hearing the parties, held that in a Letters Patent Appeal, the court does not sit as a court of first appeal and can only interfere if the findings are perverse or there is a substantial question of law. The court examined the evidence and found that the findings of the trial court and the Single Judge were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. Consequently, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal, confirming the decree for possession and mesne profits in favor of the respondents.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Letters Patent Appeal - Concurrent Findings of Fact - Interference - The appeal under Letters Patent against the judgment of a Single Judge in first appeal does not lie unless the findings are perverse or there is a substantial question of law. The court held that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the first appellate court cannot be interfered with in a Letters Patent Appeal unless they are shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. (Paras 1-5) B) Property Law - Possession and Mesne Profits - Suit for Recovery - The suit was filed by the original plaintiffs for possession and mesne profits in respect of certain properties. The trial court decreed the suit, and the first appeal was dismissed. The Letters Patent Appeal challenged the decree. The court found no perversity or substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Letters Patent Appeal against the concurrent findings of fact in a suit for possession and mesne profits raises any substantial question of law warranting interference.
Final Decision
The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. The decree for possession and mesne profits passed by the trial court and affirmed by the Single Judge is confirmed.
Law Points
- Letters Patent Appeal
- concurrent findings of fact
- no interference unless perverse
- substantial question of law
- mesne profits
- possession
