Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has emphasised that a high court is not expected to interfere with findings of fact while dealing with a second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra said the principles governing the scope of the second appeal under Section 100 CPC are well-settled. 

"To state that, under Section 100 CPC a high court is not to disturb findings of fact, would be now like stating the obvious. Yet recently, this court lamented that despite numerous judgments spelling out the scope of this power, the high court repeatedly falls in error, the bench said, citing Jaichand Vs Sahnulal (2024). The present is another such case," the bench said.

Court was dealing with an appeal filed by one Rabindranath Panigrahi against the Orissa High Court's judgment of June 20, 2022, which set aside concurrent findings upon a suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff.

The dispute was over two shop rooms in a bungalow at Behrampur, owned by Late Smt Ashalata Devi. The plaintiff claimed that he was the adopted son of Smt Ashalata Devi, and, as such, after her death, he inherited all her properties, including the suit premises. As per the plaintiff, the suit premises were leased out to the defendant in 1974 for a monthly rent of Rs 1,000. Since the defendant was an old acquaintance and had worked as a family servant, the plaintiff leased the suit premises without executing a formal lease deed. 

The defendant, on the contrary, denied the said relationship of landlord-tenant as also the status of the plaintiff being the adopted son of Smt Ashalata Devi, thereby becoming the sole owner of the suit property. 

The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent and damages which was decreed in his favour. It was held the defendant’s possession was permissive by nature and, therefore, could not be construed as an adverse possession; and no positive evidence of adverse possession was adduced by the defendant. The first appellate court affirmed the findings of the court below and dismissed the plea by the defendant with cost. It also held that he was in illegal possession and was liable to pay rent arrears. 

However, the high court, while reversing the concurrent findings of the lower courts, held that the relationship of landlord and tenant could not be sustained. It also held such a conclusion had been arrived at upon appreciation of not direct evidence but surrounding circumstances.

The high court had framed the substantial questions of law for its consideration : (1) whether the trial court had committed gross illegality in coming to the conclusion that the appellant-defendant was the tenant under the plaintiff by raising a presumption from surrounding circumstance and surmising that under such circumstances even a rustic man can say that the defendant must have occupied the shop room in question as a tenant, in absence of any material to that effect (2) whether the learned lower appellate court had not discharged its duty as required under law being the final court of fact, by dealing with all issues raised in the suit and not addressing itself to the same?               

"In the present case, the questions as framed by the high court, in our view, do not meet the criteria to be substantial questions of law. For a question to be substantial, reference can be made to the discussion made in, amongst a host of other judgments," the bench said.

The first one questions the conclusion arrived at by the trial court on the basis of appreciation of facts and does not involve any interpretation of law whatsoever. It pertains to the said relationship between the parties being proved on the basis of surrounding circumstances, the bench noted.

"In confirming the judgment of the trial court, we find the first appellate court to have, although, in short, considered the evidence on record, its application to the questions framed by the Court below and returned its findings accordingly," the bench said.   

Additionally, the bench found that both the courts below held the relationship of landlord and tenant to be proved between the parties.

Thus, the bench said, this was a finding of fact which could not be disturbed by the court in the second appeal, as it was not open for the court to examine the evidence assuming first appeal jurisdiction, unless the findings returned were perverse. 

"In the present facts, the findings of perversity, in our view, are in themselves perverse. This we say so for two reasons : One, that the defendant has been unable to prove his ownership of the subject matter property by way of adverse possession, establishing open, continuous and hostile possession; and two, that the plaintiff’s ownership that he claims to have devolved upon him by virtue of being the adopted son of Smt. Ashalata Devi (original owner) has nowhere been challenged and, as such, has attained finality," the bench said. 

The bench concluded that the first substantial question of law was unjustified as it was entirely a question of fact and, therefore, not open to adjudication. On the second aspect too, interference by the high court in the circumstances was unwarranted, it said.    

Consequently, the court set aside the judgment of the high court. It directed the tenant to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the subject premises within a period of three months from the date of the present judgment.

The bench also directed the tenant to clear all arrears, be it rent, utilities or otherwise, within the same timeframe. The court ordered that it has to be ensured that as on the date of handing over of possession, all dues, statutory and/or contractual, arising out of the tenancy, should be duly cleared. The court directed its Registry to communicate a copy of the order to the Registrar General, High Court of Orissa, who should further communicate it to the concerned parties.  

Case Title: Rabindranath Panigrahi Vs Surendra Sahu