AVTAR SINGH & ORS. versus BIMLA DEVI & ORS.

AVTAR SINGH & ORS. versus BIMLA DEVI & ORS.

The High Court's interference in the concurrent findings of fact reached by the trial court and first appellate court was not justified under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act because the High Court based its decision on reappreciation of the record rather than on any legal or procedural error or perversity; therefore the High Court's judgment was set aside and the appeal allowed.

Parties
Appellants/defendants: Avtar Singh & Ors.; Respondents/plaintiffs: Bimla Devi & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal No.6096 of 2021 / Appeal to the Supreme Court From the High Court of Punjab and Haryana Judgment Dated 24.08.2016 in RSA No.932 of 2010 (o&m)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned judgment of the High Court set aside
Legal Topics
Second Appeal Jurisdiction, Substantial Question of Law Under Section 100 CPC, Section 41 Punjab Courts Act, Concurrent Findings of Fact, Possession of Property, Local Commissioner's Report, Injunction
Civil Procedure Property Law Second Appeal Jurisdiction Substantial Question of Law Under Section 100 CPC Section 41 Punjab Courts Act Concurrent Findings of Fact Possession of Property Local Commissioner's Report +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Avtar Singh & Ors.

Appellants/defendants

Bimla Devi & Ors.

Respondents/plaintiffs

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal No.6096 of 2021 / Appeal to the Supreme Court From the High Court of Punjab and Haryana Judgment Dated 24.08.2016 in RSA No.932 of 2010 (o&m)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court improperly interfered with concurrent findings of fact by reappreciation of evidence in a second appeal under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act
  2. 2 Whether the substantial question of law framed under Section 100 CPC was appropriate/applicable in the context of Punjab Courts Act
  3. 3 Whether the Local Commissioner's report supported the plaintiffs' claim regarding the chaubara, holes in the lintel and incomplete staircase

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court's interference in the concurrent findings of fact reached by the trial court and first appellate court was not justified under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act because the High Court based its decision on reappreciation of the record rather than on any legal or procedural error or perversity; therefore the High Court's judgment was set aside and the appeal allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned judgment of the High Court set aside

Orders

  • Impugned judgment dated 24.08.2016 in RSA No.932/2010 set aside
  • Appeal allowed