DAMODAR LAL versus SOHAN DEVI AND OTHERS

Citation: [2016] 1 S.C.R. 607 · Decided: 05-01-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 1 S.C.R. 607 
DAMODAR LAL 
v. 
SOHAN DEVI AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 23 l of2015) 
JANUARY 05, 2016 
[T. S. THAKUR, CJI·AND KURIAN JOSEPH, J.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. JOO - Second appeal -
Substantial question of law - Eviction of tenant on the ground of 
unauthorised construction by trial court - Said order upheld by 
first appellate court - High Court allowed the second appeal 011 a 
pure question of fact, setting aside concurrent finding of courts 
· below - On appeal, held: High Court was wholly wrong, if not, 
perverse - It should not have interfered with concurrent findings of 
the trial court and first appellate court on a pure question of fact -
Their inference on facts is certainly reasonable - Strained effort 
made by the High Cour·t in second appeal to arrive at a different 
finding is wholly unwarranted apart from being impermissible under 
law - Thus, the judgment of the High Court set aside and that of the 
trial court as upheld by first appellate court restored. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
' 
HELD: 1.1 Only the trial court came to the definite finding 
on structural alteration in a tenanted premises. That finding was 
endorsed by the first appellate court on re-appreciation of the 
evidence, and therefore, the High Court in second appeal was 
not justified in upsetting the finding which is a pure question of 
fact. Both the questions of law framed by the High Court are not 
substantial questions of law. Even if the finding of fact is wrong, 
that by itself would not constitute a question of law. The wrong 
finding should stem out on a complete misreading of evidence or 
it should be based only on conjectures and surmises. Safest 
approach on perversity is the classic approach on the reasonable 
man's inference on the facts. To him, if the conclusion on the 
facts in evidence made by the court below is possible, there is no 
perversity. If not, the finding is perverse. Inadequacy of evidence 
or a different reading of evidence is not perversity. [Para 13] 
[612-D-F] 
607 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
608 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) l S.C.R. 
1.2 The High Court was wholly wrong, if not, perverse. It 
should not have interfered with concurrent findings of the trial 
court and first appellate court on a pure question of fact. Their 
inference on facts is certainly reasonable. The strained effort made 
by the High Court in second appeal to arrive at a different finding 
is wholly unwarranted apart from being impermissible under law. 
Therefore, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside 
and that of the trial court as confirmed by the appellate court is 
restored. However, the respondents-tenants are given time upto 
31" March, 2017 to use the premises and pay occupation charges 
at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month. [Paras 16-17] [614-E-H; 
615-A] 
Krishnan v. Backiam and another 2007 (9) SCR 901: 
(2007) 12 SCC 190; Gurvachan Kaur and others v. 
Sa/ikram (Dead) Through Lrs. (2010) 15 SCC 530; 
Ku/want Kaur and others 1' Gurdial Singh Mann (Dead) 
by Lrs. 2001 (2) SCR 525 : (2001) 4 SCC 262; S.R. 
Tiwqri 1' Union of India 2013 (8) SCR 988 : (2013) 6 
SCC 602; Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. 
Delhi 
Administration, Through Secretary (Labour) and others 
1985 (1) SCR 866 : (1984) 4 SCC 635 - referred 
to. 
2007 (~) SCR 901 
(2010) 15 sec 530 
2001 (2) SCR 525 
2013 fl!) SCR 988 
1?85 (1) SCR 866 
Case Law Reference 
Referred to. 
Referred to. 
Referred to. 
Referred to. 
Referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : 
of2015 
Para 10 
Para 11 
Para 14 
Para 15 
Para 15 
Civil Appeal Nos. 231 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2012 at the High Court 
ofJudicature for Rajasthan atJodhpur, in S. B. Civil Second Appeal No. 
109 of2000. 
Pallav Shishodia, Rishabh Sancheti, Padma Priya, T. Mahi pal for 
the Appellant. 
Subrat Birla, S. C. Birla for the Respondents. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DAMODAR LAL v. SOHAN DEVI 
609 
KURIAN, J.: 1. The facts unfold the plight of a poor landlord 
A 
languishing in courts for over fourty years. The case gets sadder when 
we note that appellant had been successful both in the trial court and the 
first appellate court and the saddest part is thatthe High Court in second 
appeal, went against him on a pure question of fact! 
2. Issue number-3 framed in Civil Regular Suit No. 191 of 1974 
B 
for eviction on the ground of unauthorised construction/material alteration, 
decided on 21.12.1989 in the Court of M

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