SHEEL CHAND versus PRAKASH CHAND

SHEEL CHAND versus PRAKASH CHAND

The Supreme Court held that the High Court unjustifiably interfered in pure questions of fact under Section 100 CPC in the absence of a substantial question of law, and improperly reversed concurrent factual findings of lower courts.

Parties
Appellant: Sheel Chand; Respondent: Prakash Chand
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 September 1998
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal Against Madhya Pradesh High Court Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Section 100 CPC, Second Appeal, Eviction on Ground of Bona Fide Need, Appreciation of Evidence, Substantial Question of Law
Civil Procedure Rent and Eviction Section 100 CPC Second Appeal Eviction on Ground of Bona Fide Need Appreciation of Evidence Substantial Question of Law

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sheel Chand

Appellant

Prakash Chand

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal Against Madhya Pradesh High Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact in second appeal under Section 100 CPC without a substantial question of law
  2. 2 Whether the landlord's need was bona fide

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the High Court unjustifiably interfered in pure questions of fact under Section 100 CPC in the absence of a substantial question of law, and improperly reversed concurrent factual findings of lower courts.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment and order of the High Court dated 13th September 1996 is set aside
  • Eviction suit filed by the landlord stands dismissed