- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Mohd. Yunus v. Gurubux Singh .
Factual and Procedural Background
The dispute concerns an eviction action predicated on alleged non-payment of rent. The appellant-tenant asserted that rent had been remitted to the respondent-landlord, Gurubux Singh, via money orders and placed in evidence two sets of documents marked Exhibit E series and Exhibit C series. Both the trial court and the first appellate court accepted this explanation. On second appeal, however, the High Court observed that none of the money-order documents bore the respondent’s address and therefore did not prove that payment was tendered to him. Treating the payment defence as unproved, the High Court ordered eviction. The present judgment disposes of the appellant’s further appeal against that High Court decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was justified in reversing concurrent findings of fact regarding payment of rent.
- Whether the appellant’s oral testimony, without corroborating postal evidence or examination of the postman, was sufficient to prove that the money orders were addressed to and received by the respondent.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC by reappreciating evidence and overturning concurrent factual findings.
- Even if documentary proof was inadequate, the appellant’s own categorical oral testimony established that the money orders were sent to the respondent.
Respondent's Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent’s legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court held that a second appellate court may interfere with findings of fact when there is “gross misappreciation of evidence” impacting the core issue. It agreed with the High Court that the money-order exhibits merely showed the addressee’s name, not his address, and therefore failed to demonstrate that rent was tendered to the respondent. To bridge this evidentiary gap, the appellant should have examined the postman, which he did not do. The court found the appellant’s uncorroborated oral assertion (“mere ipse dixit”) insufficient to establish payment. Consequently, no error was found in the High Court’s interference under Section 100 CPC.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED.
The eviction order passed by the High Court stands affirmed. The court ordered no costs. The decision resolves the dispute between the parties but does not articulate any new legal principle; its effect is confined to upholding the High Court’s evidentiary assessment and eviction directive.
Order
1. To ward off the allegation of non-payment of rent, the appellant pleaded that the rent had been sent by money-orders in the name of respondent — Gurubux Singh. In support of this, he produced Exhibit-E series together with Exhibit-C series. The High Court found, reversing the concurrent findings, these Exhibits would merely establish the name of the addressee — Gurubux Singh but there is nothing to indicate that it was addressed to the respondent — Gurubux Singh since the address of the respondent was not found in any one of the these documents. On the score, it has directed eviction.
2. It is argued before us that the High Court was not correct in interfering with the factual findings under Section 100 of CPC. In any event, there is oral evidence of the appellant-tenant who has categorically stated that the money-orders were sent to Gurubux Singh — the respondent herein. We are unable to agree with either of the submissions. Where there is a gross misappreciation of evidence which goes to the root of the matter, certainly the second appellate court can exercise its jurisdiction. Here the documents which are relied on by the appellant do not show that it was addressed to the respondent — Gurubux Singh. In order to establish the same, the postman should have been examined. The High Court is right in its conclusion. As regards the next contention, the mere ipse dixit, even without any cross-examination by this Court of the appellant, will not establish that the money-orders were addressed to the respondent. The evidence in this behalf is lacking. The appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
Alert