DAMODAR LAL versus SOHAN DEVI AND OTHERS

DAMODAR LAL versus SOHAN DEVI AND OTHERS

The High Court erred in interfering with the concurrent factual findings of the trial and appellate courts concerning material alteration by the tenant, as such findings were supported by evidence and did not constitute a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC. Interference was unwarranted and impermissible.

Parties
Appellant: Damodar Lal; Respondents: Sohan Devi and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the High Court's Judgment in Second Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed. High Court judgment set aside. Trial court decree as upheld by first appellate court restored.
Legal Topics
Second Appeal, Substantial Question of Law, Eviction, Material Alteration, Perversity of Findings
Civil Procedure Landlord and Tenant Law Second Appeal Substantial Question of Law Eviction Material Alteration Perversity of Findings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Damodar Lal

Appellant

Sohan Devi and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the High Court's Judgment in Second Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with concurrent findings of fact regarding material/structural alteration by the tenant in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
  2. 2 Whether the finding on structural alteration amounted to a substantial question of law justifying High Court's interference.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in interfering with the concurrent factual findings of the trial and appellate courts concerning material alteration by the tenant, as such findings were supported by evidence and did not constitute a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC. Interference was unwarranted and impermissible.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. High Court judgment set aside. Trial court decree as upheld by first appellate court restored.

Orders

  • High Court judgment dated 27.09.2012 is set aside.
  • Trial court decree for eviction as confirmed by the first appellate court is restored.