AVTAR SINGH & ORS. versus BIMLA DEVI & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 6 S.C.R. 239 · Decided: 29-09-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
239
AVTAR SINGH & ORS.
v.
BIMLA DEVI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6096 of 2021)
SEPTEMBER 29, 2021
[K. M. JOSEPH AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.100 – Punjab Courts Act,
1918 – Suit filed by respondents / plaintiffs alleging that defendant
Nos. 2 to 4 broke the lintel portion of the roof (of the first floor of
the building) illegally with intention to take forcible possession of
the plaintiffs’ house constructed on the first floor; and further
secretly constructed a staircase – Trial court and first appellate
court after considering the evidence on record – including the
report of a local commissioner who had visited the site – dismissed
the suit –  Second appeal – High Court, framed substantial question
of law, as required by s.100 CPC and answered it in favour of the
plaintiffs, consequently resulting in decree of the suit – Justification
of – Held: Not justified – The Local Commissioner’s report
corroborated the respondents/ plaintiffs’ case that a staircase did
not exist, or rather that it was in the stage of construction and was
not completed – The report also bore out the plaintiffs’ allegation
that holes had been made in the lintel of the roof – Furthermore,
the dimensions of the chaubara, as found by the Local
Commissioner, differed from what was stated by the second
defendant – The lower courts ignored the evidence – in the form
of the Local Commissioner’s report – with regard to the issue of
possession of the chaubara – The Local Commissioner was neither
cross-examined, nor was his report objected to – Mere findings of
fact cannot be interfered with in exercise of second appellate
jurisdiction given the three limbs of jurisdiction available u/s.41
of the Punjab Courts Act – Findings of fact which are
unreasonable, or which are rendered by overlooking the record,
therefore, per se do not appear to fall within the scope of second
appellate review by the High Court – On facts, High Court’s
findings – which are based entirely on re-appreciation of the record
– and consequent interference with the concurrent findings of the
lower courts, cannot be upheld.
   [2021] 6 S.C.R. 239
239
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
240
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. The Local Commissioner’s report corroborated
the respondents/plaintiffs’ case that a staircase did not exist, or
rather that it was in the stage of construction and was not
completed. The report also bore out the plaintiffs’ allegation that
holes had been made in the lintel of the roof. Furthermore, the
dimensions of the chaubara, as found by the Local Commissioner,
differed from what was stated by the second defendant. [Para 14]
[245-G]
2. From the evidence, it is apparent that undeniably
second defendant’s possession – and perhaps even ownership -
of the ground floor shop, could not be denied. The findings of
the lower courts, therefore, based upon the registered
documents cannot be faulted. However, both these courts
ignored the other evidence – in the form of the Local
Commissioner’s report – with regard to the issue of possession
of the chaubara. The Local Commissioner was neither cross-
examined, nor was his report objected to. [Para 15][245-H; 246-
A-B]
3. Mere findings of fact cannot be interfered with, in
exercise of second appellate jurisdiction given the three limbs
of jurisdiction available under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts
Act. Findings of fact which are unreasonable, or which are
rendered by overlooking the record, therefore, per se do not
appear to fall within the scope of second appellate review by the
High Court. In these circumstances, the High Court’s findings
– which are based entirely on the reappreciation of the record
– and consequent interference with the concurrent findings of
the lower courts, cannot be upheld. [Para 18][248-C-D]
Pankajakshi v. Chandrika (2016) 6 SCC 157 : [2016]
3 SCR 1018 – followed.
Kulwant Kaur v Gurdial Singh Mann (2001) 4 SCC
262 : [2001] 2 SCR 525 – held overruled.
Dhanpat v. Sheo Ram (2020) 16 SCC 209 ; Randhir
Kaur v. Prithvi Pal Singh (2019) 17 SCC 71 : [2019]
9 SCR 776 – relied on.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
241
Case Law Reference
[2016] 3 SCR 1018
followed
Para 16
[2001] 2 SCR 525
held overruled
Para 16
(2020) 16 SCC 209
relied on
Para 16
[2019] 9 SCR 776
relied on
Para 16
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.6096
of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.08.2016 of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No.932 of 2010

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.