IMPORTANT POINT
When the judgment of the final Court of fact (in this case 1st appellate Court) is based on misinterpretation of documentary evidence or on consideration of inadmissible evidence or ignoring material evidence then High Court in second appeal u/s 100 CPC is entitled to interfere with the judgment as was done in this case rightly.

Headnote:Evidence Act, 1872-Section 57-C.P.C. 1908-Section 100-Constitution of India-Article 136-Dispute on two fields and a temple between two Sects of Jain Community-Digambri Jain filed suit for possession and declarations against Shwetambri-Dismissed by trial Court-Reversed by first appellate Court-High Court in second appeal reversed first appellate Court and restored trial Court-Appeal against to Supreme Court-High Court found judgment of 1st appellate Court based on mis-interpretation of documentary evidence and on consideration of inadmissible evidence u/s 57 of Evidence Act-Whether High Court was right in reversing final Court of fact in second appeal on this ground? (Yes)-Result-Appeal dismissed-Case law referred.
Held : From the discussions in the judgment it is clear that the High Court has based its findings on the documentary evidence placed on record and statements made by some witnesses which can be construed as admissions or conclusions. The position is well settled that when the judgment of the final Court of fact is based on mis-interpretation of documentary evidence or on consideration of inadmissible evidence or ignoring material evidence the High Court in second appeal is entitled to interfere with the judgment. The position is also well settled that admission of parties or their witnesses are relevant pieces of evidence and should be given due weightage by Courts. A finding of fact ignoring such admissions or concessions is vitiated in law and can be interfered with by the High Court in second appeal. Since the parties have been in litigating terms for several decades the records are voluminous. The High Court as it appears from the judgment has discussed the documentary evidence threadbare in the light of law relating to their admissibility and relevance. On perusal of the judgment of the High Court and on consideration of the matter we do not find that the judgment suffers from any serious illegality or infirmity which calls for interference in this appeal filed by special leave. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. (Paras 31 & 32)

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points can be summarized as follows:

The Supreme Court held that when the judgment of the final Court of fact (such as the first appellate court) is based on misinterpretation of documentary evidence, consideration of inadmissible evidence, or ignoring material evidence, the High Court in a second appeal under section 100 CPC is justified to interfere with that judgment (!) (!) .
The Court emphasized that admissions made by parties or their witnesses are relevant and must be given due weight. Ignoring such admissions or concessions renders a finding of fact legally infirm and subject to correction on second appeal (!) .
The judgment underscores that a detailed and careful examination of documentary evidence and witness statements is essential, especially in complex property disputes involving religious or community properties (!) .
The High Court’s review revealed that the lower appellate court relied on inadmissible evidence and misinterpreted key documents, which affected the correctness of its findings regarding ownership and possession of the disputed property (!) (!) .
The Court clarified that the question of title to a property, especially religious or community property, cannot be solely determined by historical or archaeological records but must be supported by admissible documentary evidence and proper legal analysis (!) (!) .
The Court reaffirmed that findings of fact made by the lower appellate court are not binding in second appeal if they are based on errors such as misinterpretation of evidence, consideration of inadmissible evidence, or flawed reasoning (!) (!) .
The Court concluded that the High Court’s detailed review and re-evaluation of the evidence did not reveal any serious legal infirmity warranting interference, and thus, the appeal was dismissed with costs (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal principles related to this case.

JUDGMENT

D.P. Mohapatra, J.-This appeal filed by the plaintiff s is directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court, in Second Appeal No. 164/1968 in which the High Court allowed the appeal, No. 123-A, filed by the defendants, set aside the decree passed by the lower appellate court and restored the decree passed by the trial court.

2. The appellants filed the suit as representatives of Akhil Digambari Jain community of village Shirpur, Talaq Washim, District Akola. The defendants who are respondents herein were impleaded as representatives of Swetambari Jain community of the area. The plaintiffs prayed for the following main reliefs in the suit :

"(a) Order passed by the Court of S.D.M. on 17.12.1927 and that passed by the Court of the Addl. Judl. Commissioner on 6.8.1928 against the plaintiffs be set aside.

(b) It be declared that the whole of the Digambari Jain community is entitled to have full possession, Wahiwat and enjoyment of rights, over the field S.No.197 as described hereinabove and the defendants be directed to put the plaintiffs in possession of the said field in the condition in which it may be. Similarly, it be declared that the whole of the Digambari Jain community is entitled to have joint rights in field S.No.198/1 as detailed and described hereinabove and the defendants be directed to put the plaintiffs in joint possession of it also in the condition in which it may be.

(c) The reliefs regarding rights as stated by the plaintiffs in plaint paras Nos. 5(b) to (i) and shown in the map dated 2.10.37 be granted to them if necessary and in the alternative."

3. The case of the plaintiffs sans unnecessary details may be stated thus :

There are two fields under Survey No. 197 and 198/1 situate at mouza Shirpur Tq. Washim, District Akola, measuring 2 acres 5 gunthas and 1 acre 22 gunthas, respectively. The two fields adjoin each other. In Survey No. 197 there is a very old Hemadpanthi temple of Shri Antariksha Parshwanath known as Pawli temple. This temple and its precincts spread over 20 gunthas of land were being preserved as an ancient monument by the Archeological Department of Government of India during the period 1925 to 1964. In this field near the temple there is a garden having fruit bearing and flowering trees.

4. The shrine in the said temple is worshipped by both Digambari and Swetambari sects of Jains. Originally the management of the temple of Shri Antariksha Parshwanath temple was in the hands of Maratha and Kunbi servants of the Jain community. These servants were known as Paulkars. In course of time the Paulkars, began to assert their rights to management of Shri Antariksha Parshwanath temple and this led to disputes between the members of the Jain community on the one hand and the Paulkars on the other. In the proceedings initiated under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code the S.D.M. Washim by order dated 7.9.1903 held that the Jain Community was in exclusive possession of the property of Shri Antariksha Parshwanath Maharaj Sansthan and accordingly the receiver was directed to hand over possession of the property of Shri Antariksha Parshwanath Maharaj Sansthan to Panchas of the Jain community.

5. Near about the year 1908 dispute started between the two Sects of Jain community, the Digambaris and the Shawetambaris and each sect started to claim that Shri Antariksha Parshwanath Maharaj temple was a temple of their sect, the idol was an idol of their sect. Each sect claimed exclusive management of the temple and worship of the deity according to the tenets of its own Sect. Eventually, the Swetambaris instituted Civil Suit No. 4 of 1910 in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Akola to establish their right, title and management of Shri Antariksha Parshwanath temple against the Digambaris. The suit was filed by certain members of Swetambari sects in their representative capacity as representing the Swetambari community and similarly the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 758

Cases Referred (9)