When Perverse or Evidence-Free Concurrent Findings Face Interference in Second Appeals and Special Leave Petitions

Two courts have examined the same evidence, weighed the same witnesses, and arrived at the same conclusion on a question of fact. The losing party now approaches the High Court in a second appeal or the Supreme Court seeking special leave. Can those concurrent findings of fact be disturbed? The short answer is yes — but only in narrow, well-defined circumstances, principally where the findings are perverse or rest on no evidence at all.

The General Rule: Concurrent Findings Command Deference

Indian appellate practice proceeds on a strong presumption of correctness where two courts below have independently recorded the same factual finding. Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court's jurisdiction in a second appeal is confined to substantial questions of law; it is not a forum for re-appreciating evidence. The existence of a substantial question of law is a sine qua non for entertaining a second appeal, and an appeal cannot succeed merely because an alternate view of the facts is possible 2018 0 Supreme(AP) 10.

The same restraint governs writ jurisdiction. High Courts exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India cannot sit as appellate courts over concurrent findings, since re-appreciation of evidence is not their function 2021 0 Supreme(Jhk) 913. Similarly, in criminal appeals, concurrent findings based on evidence are ordinarily left undisturbed 2015 0 Supreme(SC) 638.

As the courts have put it, findings of fact cannot be interfered with in a second appeal unless the findings are perverse 2020 2 Supreme 716.

The Exception: What Makes a Finding Perverse?

The deference accorded to concurrent findings is not absolute. A finding of fact crosses into perversity when:

• It is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material on the record;
• It is reached by taking into consideration irrelevant or inadmissible material;
• It so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality 2022 0 Supreme(Jhk) 402;
• It is based on no evidence, or on evidence that is thoroughly unreliable, or suffers from procedural irregularity such that no reasonable person would have reached that conclusion 2022 0 Supreme(Jhk) 402.

Importantly, the bar is not a low one. If there is some acceptable evidence on record which could be relied upon, the conclusions will not be treated as perverse, and the findings will not be interfered with 2025 0 Supreme(HP) 534 and 2025 0 Supreme(HP) 1389. In other words, a mere possibility of a different view — even a arguably better one — does not open the door to interference. Perversity must typically be apparent on the face of the record2023 0 Supreme(Guj) 448.

Findings Based on No Evidence

A distinct but related ground arises where the concurrent findings are essentially the ipse dixit of the courts below — conclusions resting on conjecture and surmises without any foundation in the evidence. Where findings are without any material or unsupported by the record, they lose the protection that concurrence ordinarily confers 2016 0 Supreme(Mad) 2943 and 2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 662. Such findings are treated as perverse in the eye of the law and may be set aside.

How This Plays Out Before the High Court Under Section 100 CPC

Even where perversity is argued, the procedural architecture of Section 100 matters. The Supreme Court has set aside a High Court judgment that reversed concurrent findings on the plaintiff's readiness and willingness in a specific performance suit without pointing to any exceptional circumstance or perversity, and without even summoning the trial record 2023 8 Supreme 194. The ruling reinforces that:

• Substantial questions of law must be framed, and parties heard on them, before the High Court reverses concurrent findings;
• The High Court cannot decide issues of fact in a second appeal unless the findings are perverse or vitiated by non-consideration of relevant evidence 2021 8 Supreme 362;
• Interference on findings of fact is permitted only in exceptional cases — where the finding rests on inadmissible or no evidence.

The Position Under Article 136 of the Constitution

The Supreme Court's special leave jurisdiction under Article 136 is wider, but it is exercised against concurrent findings only in exceptional circumstances. It remains open to the Supreme Court to interfere with findings of fact if the High Court has acted perversely or otherwise improperly2022 7 Supreme 422. Ordinarily, however, the Court will not revisit the appreciation of evidence where the findings are supported by the record 2015 0 Supreme(SC) 638.

The Burden on the Challenging Party

The party seeking interference carries a real evidentiary burden. Rather than arguing simply that the evidence supports a different conclusion, the challenger should:

1. Identify the specific material evidence that was ignored, misread, or excluded by the courts below;
2. Demonstrate that irrelevant or inadmissible material influenced the findings;
3. Show that the conclusions defy logic or rest on no evidence whatsoever;
4. In a second appeal, frame a genuine substantial question of law, since the jurisdiction is not a license for general re-appreciation of facts.

Minor discrepancies in testimony or gaps in corroboration do not, by themselves, render concurrent findings perverse.

Key Takeaways

• Concurrent findings of fact are generally binding on the High Court in a second appeal and on the Supreme Court under Article 136.
• Interference is permissible where findings are perverse — built on ignored or excluded relevant material, irrelevant considerations, irrationality, or no evidence at all.
• The presence of some acceptable evidence ordinarily defeats a claim of perversity, and perversity should be apparent on the face of the record.
• The burden lies squarely on the party challenging the findings to pinpoint the material ignored or the evidentiary vacuum.

This discussion reflects general principles drawn from judicial precedents and may vary with the facts of a particular case; specific disputes warrant advice from a qualified professional.