The High Court does not have jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact of the first appellate court in second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Headnote:
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - SECTION 100 - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT IN SECOND APPEAL - INTERFERENCE WITH FINDINGS OF FACT - SCOPE.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff, a deity, filed a suit for possession and recovery of profits of a property, claiming that it was dedicated to the deity in 1868 and had been in its possession since then. The defendants, who were in possession of the property, claimed title through sale deeds from the Bhajantries, who were in possession of the property in lieu of wages for services rendered to the temple. The trial court and the first appellate court found in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the property belonged to the deity and that the Bhajantries were in possession on its behalf.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court, in second appeal, reversed the findings of the lower courts and dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove its title to the property. The High Court found that the property remained with the Behara family, who had dedicated it to the deity, even as late as 1906, and that the cowles executed by the Bhajantries describing the property as "Bhajantri Inam of Sri Pattabhiramaswami Garu" did not prove that the property belonged to the deity.
Issues: Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact of the first appellate court in second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the findings of fact of the first appellate court. The Court held that the findings of the first appellate court were based on an appreciation of the relevant evidence and that the High Court could not substitute its own findings for those of the first appellate court. The Court further held that the High Court's finding that the property remained with the Behara family till 1906 was based on a misinterpretation of the evidence and that the High Court erred in ignoring the recitals in the cowles executed by the Bhajantries.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the decree of the High Court and restored the decree of the first appellate court.

Judgement

K. SUBUA RAO, J. : This is an appeal by Special Leave against the Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Madras in Second Appeal No. 592 of 1948 setting aside the Judgment and Decree of the District Judge, Guntur, in A. S. No. 189 of 1947, which confirmed the Judgment and Decree of the Subordinate Judge, Guntur, in O. S. No. l12 of 1945.

2. The question that arises in the appeal is whether the High Court had jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of the learned District Judge in exercise of its power under S. 100, Civil Procedure Code.

3. The case is a simple one : The plaintiff-appellant is the deity Sri Pattabhiramaswami of Narasaraopet, represented by Dharmakartha Nagasarapu Subbarayudu. The plaintiff s case is that property to the extent of 12 acres and 30 cents, bearing survey number 1032/B was dedicated to the deity in 1868 by the members of the Behara family, that the land has ever since been in the enjoyment of the deity, that at some time -not exactly known when - the then trustees entered into a convenient arrangement with the pipers, whereunder in lieu of wages for services rendered to the temple, the said property was to be in their possession, that defendants 6 to 23 are the representatives of the Bhajantries to whom the lands were given - of these defendants, defendants 6 to 14 are Hindus (Mangalis) and defendants 15 to 23 are Muslims (Dedekulas) -, that defendants 1 to 5 took two sale deeds from the other defendants one sale deed was executed in favour of defendants 1to 3 and the other in favour of defendants 4 and 5 - and that on the basis of the said sale deeds, the said alienees were setting up title of their own against the deity. On these allegations, the suit was filed for possession and for recovery of profits.

4. Defendants 1, 2, 4 and 5 filed a written-statement denying the title of the deity and its possession of the suit property. They did not set up any specific title in defendants. 6 to 23, but asserted that they were bona fide purchasers from defendants 6 to 23 who were in possession of the land.

5. On the aforesaid pleas, the following issues were framed :

(1) Has plaintiff title to the suit land by grant or prescription?

(2) Had plaintiff been in possession within 12 years prior to suit?

(3) To what future profits, if any, is plaintiff entitled?

(4) To what relief?

6. On Issue 1, the learned Subordinate Judge, having considered the entire evidence, came to the following conclusion:

"There is abundant evidence in the case documentary, oral and circumstantial to render it probable that the suit land was gifted or dedicated by the members of the Behara family to the plaintiff-deity and was in the possession and enjoyment of the Bhajantris, Mangalis and Dedekulas, only as remuneration for the service being rendered by them and as servants of the Plaintiff-deity and as land belonging to the deity and in the right of the deity and not in their own right."

7. On the basis of the appreciation of the evidence, the learned Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiff had title to the suit land. On issue 2, he held that defendants 6 to 23 were in possession on behalf of the deity and therefore the plaintiff was in possession within 12 years prior to the date of the suit. On issue 3, he found that the plaintiff was entitled to future mesne profits and according to that finding, he directed an enquiry to be held in respect of the future mesne profits under Order XX, Rule 12, Civil Procedure Code. On issue 4, he found that the plaintiff was entitled to relief as prayed for.

8. On appeal the learned District Judge, after considering the evidence afresh came to the same conclusion as arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge. In paragraph 5 of the judgment, the learned Judge observes:

"The plaintiff, although he failed to adduce satisfactory direct evidence of grant to the deity, has placed before Court ample material for coming to the conclusion that the suit property belonged to the deity and was not the p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document