Concurrent findings of fact

Parties claimed (declaration and specific performance) separately by filing their respective suits which were not consolidated, however, the Trial Court pronounced a common judgment as in consolidated proceeding

Validity

Record revealed that though initially suits were proceeded independently but, strangely, at the time of announcement of judgment both were consolidated and through a common judgment while intermingling the evidence recorded in both the suits the same were decreed, which was the outcome of gross misreading and non-reading of evidence

Scope of revisional jurisdiction is hedged in S. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (C.P.C.) and though ordinarily concurrent findings of facts are not disturbed but such findings are neither sacrosanct nor it is an inflexible rule that despite observing material flaws, the revisional court will abdicate to exercise its jurisdiction

Judgments passed by the courts below were not based on proper appraisal of evidence and the Civil Judge, while decreeing the suits of the respondents, had grossly misread the evidence

Appellate Court, while upholding the judgment and decree of Trial Court, committed a material irregularity

High Court under S. 115 of the C.P.C. is obliged and fully competent to correct such error in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction

Once it is established on the record that concurrent findings are fraught with legal infirmities, it becomes the bounden duty of court exercising revisional powers to curb and stifle such illegalities and material irregularities

High Court set-aside impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below ;consequently, suits instituted by the respondents stood dismissed

Revision filed by successors-in-interest of original owner of the suit-property was allowed, in circumstances.

Question that whether the suit-land was sold at the consideration mentioned in the impugned sale-deed or half of said consideration as asserted by the appellant/plaintiff, was a pure question of fact, which (fact) had been decided against the appellant/plaintiff concurrently by both the Courts below

Concurrent findings of facts could not be reversed in second appeal unless flagrant mis-reading or non-reading of evidence had been pointed out by the appellant or flagrant violation of any statutory law had been committed by the Courts below

No illegality or infirmity having been noticed in the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below, second appeal, filed by the plaintiff, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Concurrent findings of facts by the Courts below could not be disturbed by the High Court in exercise of its judgment under S.100 or S.115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908; unless the Courts below while recording the finding of facts had either misread the evidence or have ignored any material piece of evidence on record or finding of the facts recorded by the two Courts below was perverse.

Supreme Court does not normally go behind a concurrent finding of fact, if that finding is not vitiated by any error in point of law, but this rule is not a cast-iron one, and there may be cases of such an unusual nature as will constrain the Court to depart from it in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice

Supreme Court, therefore, does not hesitate to review the evidence in spite of a concurrent finding of the courts below, if it be shown with absolute clearness that some substantial error is apparent in the manner in which the courts below have dealt with the facts, or if the finding is on the face of it against the evidence or so patently improbable or perverse that to accept it would amount to perpetuating a grave miscarriage of justice.

Concurrent findings of the courts below can only be interfered when the same results into perpetuating miscarriage of justice or if there is any misapplication of principles relating to appreciation of evidence or when the impugned judgments are against the law.

Scope of interference against concurrent findings by courts below, in revision, was narrow and required court to examine whether lower fora failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or they acted in excess of same illegally or with material regularity based on misreading of evidence brought on record by parties

Power under S.115, C.P.C. was an exceptional and necessary power intended to secure effective exercise of its superintendence as well as visitorial powers of correction unhindered by technicalities , which could not be invoked against conclusion of law or fact based on correct appraisal of evidence on record.

Petitioner, in his application, had averred that although a declaration had been made by the Court but that was in respect of another property and the respondent/decree-holder was occupying the property other than that was decreed

Validity

Question of title was no longer disputed between the parties as the declaration sought by the respondent had been granted

Point raised by the petitioner had already been decided against him in the suit as well as in the first appeal, therefore, the present petition in the present form was not competent

High Court had very limited jurisdiction to disturb the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the courts below, unless it was proved that the same suffered from any jurisdictional defect/error or were based on misreading or non-reading of materials available on file, which elements were conspicuously lacking in the present petition

Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Concurrent findings of facts did not call for interference by a Court in exercise of jurisdiction of revision under S. 115, C.P.C.

Concurrent findings of facts did not call for interference by a Court in exercise of jurisdiction of revision under S. 115, C.P.C.

While exercising jurisdiction of revision under S.115, C.P.C., High Court could not interfere in concurrent findings of courts below unless they were erroneous and had occasioned miscarriage of justice.

Findings of facts were recorded by the forums below which were competent to decide the matter, keeping in view the material available with them

Disputed facts could not be called in question before the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction

High Court ordinarily did not interfere in the findings of facts recorded by the courts below unless some illegality, perversity and erroneous exercise of jurisdiction was floating on the surface of record

Claim of petitioner required resolution of disputed facts and the petitioner had failed to show any glaring illegality on the record, which could be determined without recording of evidence

Constitutional petition, being not maintainable, was dismissed.

Concurrent findings of facts could be interfered with in second appeal if same were not supported by any evidence.

Revisional Court normally does not interfere in the concurrent findings of the fact recorded by courts below unless there is gross misreading and non-reading of evidence and patent violation of the law is floating on the surface of such concurrent findings

Revisional Court can not shut its eyes and is always under an obligation to rectify the error by interference in illegal findings.

Plaintiff was a non-technical man and levelled allegations against defendant without adducing any evidence of technical person

Covenants of contract of internet connection obtained by plaintiff was not available on record to show as to what part and clause of contract had been violated by defendant

Both the Courts below correctly observed that damages suffered and quantity of amount claimed under each head could have to be proved by cogent evidence and mere assertion of inflated amount without any corroborative evidence would be of no avail to plaintiff

Damages for mental suffering, mental and physical shock, inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life, attributable to medical treatment for injury and amount of compensation, varied with intensity of pain and suffering of plaintiff

Mental suffering and psychiatric injury would follow from foreseeable physical injury, could be compensated under the head "pain and suffering" or mental suffering which amounted to recognizable psychiatric illness which required evidence and the same was lacking

No jurisdictional error was noticed and decision of Lower Appellate Court was not so perverse that grave injustice had resulted therefrom

High Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction declined to interfere in concurrent judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Plaintiff failed to produce any evidence, therefore, both the courts below were justified to give weight to registered sale-deed having been signed and executed before Sub-Registrar

Under law, registered document always attached to its sanctity and in rebuttal strong evidence was required to cast doubt on genuineness of registered document

Plaintiff neither denied signatures on registered sale-deed nor alleged any coercion by defendant

Regarding payment of sale consideration, contents of registered document were presumed to be correct

In registered sale-deed there were clear recitals about receipt of sale consideration by plaintiff

Once document was registered then executant could not wriggle out of its binding effect

No one, under law, could be allowed to approbate, reprobate or otherwise, blow hot and cold in one breath

Registered sale-deed was signed, therefore, plaintiff could not allege coercion or illegal means and stamp paper was purchased prior to registration of sale-deed

High Court declined to interfere in concurrent findings of fact by two courts below

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.