2021 Supreme(SC) 490

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.
K.N. Nagarajappa and Others – Appellants
Versus
H. Narasimha Reddy – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 5033-5034 of 2009
Decided On : 09-09-2021

IMPORTANT POINT
There is no prohibition on entertaining a second appeal even on a question of fact provided court is satisfied that findings of fact recorded by courts below stood vitiated by non-consideration of relevant evidence or by showing an erroneous approach to the matter.

Headnote:

(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Sections 100 and 103 – Second Appeal – Substantial question of law – Jurisdiction which a High Court derives under Section 100 is based upon its framing of a substantial question of law – As a matter of law, it is axiomatic that findings of first appellate court are final – However, rule that sans a substantial question of law, High Courts cannot interfere with findings of lower Court or concurrent findings of fact, is subject to two important caveats – First is that, if findings of fact are palpably perverse or outrage conscience of court – It flies on face of logic that given facts on record, interference would be justified – Other is where findings of fact may call for examination and be upset, in limited circumstances spelt out in Section 103 CPC – There is no prohibition on entertaining a second appeal even on a question of fact provided court is satisfied that findings of fact recorded by courts below stood vitiated by non-consideration of relevant evidence or by showing an erroneous approach to the matter. (Paras 14 and 16)

(B) Agreement to Sell – Suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession as well as mesne profits based on registered sale deed – Trial court rejected appellant’s (Defendants in suit) defence and decreed suit, disbelieving agreement to sell – Substantial question of law framed by High Court was with respect to interpretation of agreement to sell by first appellate court – High Court recorded sound and convincing reasons why first appellate court’s judgment required interference – These were entirely based upon evidence led by parties on record – Appreciation of evidence by first appellate court was on the basis of it having overlooked material facts, such as appreciation of documentary and oral evidence led before trial court, that execution of agreement to sell was denied – In these circumstances, burden was upon appellants to establish that registered sale deed was a nominal document – First appellate court fell into error in overlooking important evidence and appreciating record in its true perspective and reversed decree of trial court – Moreover, High Court, in second appeal proceeded to examine documents in light of evidence led and corrected findings as it were under Section 103 of CPC – In the circumstances of case, High Court exercised power in the light of that provision – Having regard to overall circumstances, impugned judgment does not call for interference in exercise of special leave jurisdiction – Appeals dismissed. (Paras 12, 13, 18 and 19)

Facts of the case:

Respondent, in the first suit, claimed possession on the basis of the registered sale deed. That document is not denied. The rival case set-up in defence by the appellants as well as the claim in the second suit was that registered sale deed was nominal and in fact meant as a security; the appellants also contended that the suit land were to be re-conveyed after receiving full payment of ?9000, which was in effect made over to the respondent. Impugned judgment has recounted the reasons which persuaded the trial court to reject agreement to sell and approved them. At the same time, High Court found fault with the first appellant court in ignoring the important reasons, which were rooted in the facts of the case, based upon the record which had resulted in rejection of agreement to sell and the decree for possession.

Findings of Court:

High Court, in second appeal proceeded to examine the documents in light of the evidence led and corrected the findings as it were under Section 103. If the appellants’ arguments were to prevail, the findings of fact based upon an entirely erroneous appreciation of facts and by overlooking material evidence would necessarily have to remain and bind the parties, thereby causing injustice. It is precisely for such reasons that the High Courts are empowered to exercise limited factual review under Section 103 CPC.

Result : Appeals dismissed.