The Patna High Court, while dismissing an appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge, whereby the learned appellate court had affirmed the judgment passed by Munsif in a title Suit, held that a concurrent finding of fact based on evidence cannot be disturbed in an appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code on the ground that another view is also possible based on the same set of evidence.
Brief Facts:
The suit property was purchased by Smt. Ganga Devi through a registered sale deed, who sold the same to the plaintiff by a registered sale deed. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession against the defendant by evicting her from the suit property. The learned trial court held that the award in question was a forged and fabricated document, and no right in the suit property could be claimed by the defendant on that basis. The suit was, accordingly, decreed. The learned first appellate court dismissed the title appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court was affirmed. Hence, being aggrieved by the same, the appellant/defendant has preferred this Second Appeal.
Contentions of the Appellant:
Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court failed to appreciate that the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for declaration of title and recovery of possession against the defendant/appellant in the garb of eviction suit is not maintainable under B.B.C. Act wherein the eviction suit can only be filed by the landlord on any of the grounds specifically provided in Section 11 therein. He further argued that both the courts below failed to decide the matter of the relationship between landlord and tenant by framing the issue as the main issue for obtaining the decree of eviction.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that both courts have held that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit premises and has got the title and the defendant’s possession thereof is merely permissive out of grace and sympathy and she has no right, title, and interest.
The Court observed that the court cannot entertain a Second Appeal unless a substantial question of law is involved. The expression “substantial question of law” has acquired definite connotation through various judicial pronouncements. There is a concurrent finding of fact stated above by the courts below and no perversity in the findings of the courts below could be established on behalf of the defendant/appellant. A concurrent finding of fact based on evidence cannot be disturbed in an appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code on the ground that another view is also possible on the basis of the same set of evidence. It is not the case of the appellant that the findings of the courts below are contrary to the evidence available on record or without any evidence on record.
The decision of the Court:
The Patna High Court, dismissing the appeal, held that there is no substantial question of law arising for consideration in this Second Appeal.
Case Title: Most. Panchola vs Sri Krishna Kumar
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra
Case No.: Second Appeal No. 172 of 2019
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Jubair Ansari
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
