- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Madhavan Nair v. Bhaskar Pillai (Dead) By Lrs. .
Factual and Procedural Background
The plaintiff instituted a suit seeking a permanent injunction in respect of the disputed property. The trial court decreed the suit in the plaintiff’s favour. The defendants filed a first appeal, which was dismissed after the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s findings on the identity of the suit property and the plaintiff’s possession. The defendants then preferred a second appeal to the High Court. The High Court reversed the concurrent findings of both courts below, dismissed the suit, and awarded costs against the plaintiff. The present decision arises from the plaintiff’s further appeal challenging the High Court’s interference with the concurrent findings.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court, in a second appeal, was justified in reversing the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the first appellate court concerning the identity and possession of the suit property.
- Whether the first appellate court erred in taking into account a Commissioner’s report from another suit that was brought on record after remand.
Arguments of the Parties
Respondents’ Arguments
- The Commissioner’s report from a different suit was improperly introduced before the first appellate court despite an earlier statement by the appellant that no additional evidence would be led.
- Because the report was inadmissible, the first appellate court’s reliance on it vitiated the findings on the identity of the property, requiring interference in second appeal.
Appellant’s Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the appellant’s legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined the judgments of the trial court, the first appellate court, and the High Court. It noted that the first appellate court had scrutinised all material evidence on the identity of the property and dealt with the Commissioner’s report only incidentally, focusing chiefly on the northern boundary. Even if that report were excluded, the appellate court’s conclusion on identity would remain unaffected. The Court found no instance where the first appellate court ignored admissible evidence or relied on inadmissible material.
Reiterating the settled principle that concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed in second appeal unless a substantial question of law arises, the Court held that the High Court lacked justification for re-appreciating evidence and overturning factual determinations. Consequently, the High Court committed an error in setting aside the decrees of the lower courts.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL ALLOWED; the impugned High Court judgment is set aside, and the decree of the trial court, as affirmed by the first appellate court, is restored. No costs were awarded.
Implications: The decision reinforces the limitation on High Court interference with concurrent factual findings in second appeals, affirming that such interference is permissible only where a substantial question of law is involved. Beyond reinstating relief to the plaintiff, the judgment does not purport to create new precedent but reiterates established appellate principles.
Order
1. The plaintiff is before this Court in this appeal. He filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. The trial court, after a full-dressed trial, decreed the suit. The defendants challenged the judgment and decree of the trial court in the first appeal. The first appellate court did not find any ground to interfere with the judgment and decree of the trial court. Hence, it affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court and in that view, dismissed the appeal. The defendants pursued the matter further and filed second appeal in the High Court. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, reversed the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents at length. The learned counsel, in their arguments, reiterated the submissions that were made before the High Court. The High Court upset the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below, observing thus:
“In the result, though it is a concurrent finding, I set aside the judgment of the courts below. The courts below have not taken into consideration the material evidence before them. Various decisions in the proceedings to which the plaintiff is a party were ignored by the courts below simply on the ground that they are not res judicata. The lower court also granted an injunction without any attempt to identify the property and without proof of possession. Since there is a material illegality committed by the courts below in passing a decree in favour of the plaintiff, in second appeal, this Court is entitled to have the same reconsidered. The legal effect of the evidence adduced was not taken into consideration which also enables this Court to interfere in the second appeal. The concurrent judgments of the courts below are, therefore, set aside and the suit is dismissed with costs in all the three courts.”
3. As can be seen from the judgment of the first appellate court, the first appellate court examined each one of the contentions raised on behalf of the respondents herein as to the identity of the suit property and also as to the effect of the documents, including the judgments in the earlier suit. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents strongly contended that the report of the Commissioner filed in another suit was brought on record before the first appellate court after remand. He pointed out that before the High Court in the earlier round, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that they would not lead any additional evidence and the case could be disposed of on the available material on record. That being the position, it was not open to the appellant to produce additional evidence, namely, the report of the Commissioner in the earlier suit. We may point out at once that the first appellate court considered the report of the Commissioner made in the earlier suit in paragraph 10, incidentally dealing with only the northern boundary of the suit property. The first appellate court in earlier paragraphs of the judgment has discussed at length in regard to the identity of the property. Even ignoring the Commissioner's report produced by way of additional evidence, in our view, the result cannot be altered as to the identity of the property. We are not able to find that the first appellate court either ignored any material evidence having bearing on the decision of the case or considered any evidence which was otherwise not admissible. This being the position, the High Court was not at all justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact. It is well settled that even if the first appellate court commits an error in recording finding of fact, that itself will not be a ground for the High Court to upset the same. Having perused the judgments of the trial court, the first appellate court and the High Court, we are of the view that the High Court committed an error in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two courts below. In this view of the matter, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside. The judgment and decree passed by the trial court, as affirmed by the first appellate court, stand restored.
4. No costs.
Alert