1. Suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession dismissed due to failure to prove chain of title. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(CONSUMER) 18
CONSUMER
N. Anand Venkatesh, J
S. Muralidharan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
C.M.A. No. 434 of 2023
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R. Senthil Kumar
For the Respondents:Government Advocate
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R. Senthil Kumar
For the Respondents:Government Advocate
Appellate courts shall not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence.
Headnote:(A) Concurrent Findings of Fact - Scope of Interference - Appellate courts will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact reached by two lower courts unless there is a glaring error, perversity, or the findings are based on no evidence. (Para 5)
(B) Evidence - Appreciation of Oral Testimony - Reliance on a witness whose credibility was diminished during cross-examination is insufficient to overturn concurrent findings of lower courts. (Para 5)
Issues: Whether the concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court regarding the failure to prove the chain of title warrant interference by the High Court.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- property law
Table of Contents
2. Appellant argued trial court overlooked oral evidence and documents established ownership; appeal dismissed. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. Concurrent findings based on proper appreciation of evidence; no perversity demonstrated; key witness found unreliable. (Para 4 , 5 )
4. Appellate court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact absent glaring error or finding based on no evidence. (Para 5 )
5. Appeal dismissed as devoid of merits; no interference with judgment and decree of courts below. (Para 6 )
6. When will an appellate court interfere with concurrent findings of fact?
Only when there is a glaring error or the finding is based on no evidence. (Para 5 )
7. What standard applies when a key witness is found unreliable?
The court must examine if the trial court's finding of unreliability was based on proper appreciation of evidence during cross-examination. (Para 4 , 5 )
JUDGMENT
PER N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 12.01.2022 passed by the learned District Judge, Thanjavur in A.S. No. 15 of 2018, which dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein.
The facts of the case are as follows:
2. The appellant filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of the suit property. The trial court dismissed the suit on the grounds that the appellant failed to prove the chain of title.
i) The appellant contends that the trial court overlooked the oral evidence of PW-2.
ii) It is further contended that the documents marked as Ex.A1 to A5 clearly establish the ownership.
[[IMG_1]]
3. The first appellate court, while confirming the judgment of the trial court, observed that the documents produced were insufficient to grant the relief of declaration.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
4. Having perused the records, this Court finds that the concurrent findings of the two courts below are based on a proper appreciation of evidence. The appellant has not been able to demonstrate any perversity in the findings of the lower courts.
5. It is a settled principle of law that the appellate court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a glaring error or the finding is based on no evidence.
In the present case, the appellant's reliance on the testimony of PW-2 is misplaced as the said witness was found to be unreliable during cross-examination.
6. Consequently, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the courts below.
The appeal is devoid of merits.
