DILBAGRAI PUNJABI versus SHARAD CHANDRA

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 276 · Decided: 08-08-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DILBAGRAI PUNJABI 
v. 
SHARAD CHANDRA 
AUGUST 8, 1988 
B 
[R.S. PATHAK, CJ & LAUT MOHAN SHARMA, J.] 
G 
D 
E 
Civil Procedure Code: Section JOO-Appeal-Subordinate courts 
refuse to consider evidence having direct bearing on disputed issue-
Error arising gives birth to a substantial question df law-Whether High 
Court has jurisdiction to set aside finding. 
Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961: .Section 
12( l)(f)-Suit for eviction of tenant for personal necessity-Esssential 
for plaintiff to prove ownership of property-Partition deed by which 
ownership claimed not produced-Effect of-Court under duty to 
examine other relevant evidence on record. 
·The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit under s. 12(1)(0 of the 
Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, for eviction of the 
appellant-tenant, on the ground of personal necessity. The trial court 
rejected the plaintiff's claim that he· was the owner of the house in 
question. 
On appeal, the Additional District Judge confirmed the. finding of 
the trial court on the ground that the plaintiff did not produce the deed 
of partition, alleged to have been executed by the parties and, under 
which the house in question was said to have been allotted to him. In 
second appeal, the High Court reversed the finding and decreed the 
F 
suit. 
In the appeal to this Court, on behalf of the t~naiit it was con-
tended that it was essential for the plaintiff-respondent to establish that 
he was the owner of the premises, and that the concurrent finding of 
fact recorded by· first two courts was binding on the High Court under 
G 
s. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure and its reversal was illegal. 
Dismissing the appeal; 
HELD: 1.1 The High Court's power to interfere with the finding 
of fact reached by the first appellate court cannot be denied if, when the 
H 
lower appellate court decides an issue of fact, a substantial question of 
276 
DILBAGRAI v. SHARAD CHANDRA 
277 
law arises, even though the High Court, while hearing the appeal under 
s. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has nojurisdiction to re-appraise 
the evidence and reverse the conclusion reached by the first appellate 
cmirt.[280C] 
-
The court is under a duty to examine the entire relevant evidence 
on record and if it refuses to consider important evidence having direct 
bearing on the disputed issue and the error which arises is of a 
magnitude that it gives birth to a substantial question of law, the High 
Court is fully ·authorised to set aside the finding. [280D] 
A 
B 
1.2 A perusal of the language of the clause (0 <>f s. 12(1) of 
the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, and compari-
son tnereof with that fo the other clauses clearly indicates that it is c 
essential for the plaintiff who claims that he requires the shop person-
ally for starting. a business, to establish that he is the owner of the 
premises. l278G-liJ 
In the instant case, though the partition deed under which the 
D 
plaintiff claims exclusive title to the property was not produced in 
court, the first appellate court was under a duty to consider all the 
relevant evidence led by the parties along with the circumstances. The 
Cjvil Judge, who tried the suit as well as the Additional District Judge, 
confirming the decision of the trial court, had .§eriously' erred in not 
considering the entire evidence on record including the reply to the 
E 
notice sent by the plaintiff-respondent, wherein the tenant-appellant 
has accepted the .plaintiff's title and counter-foil receipts signed by the 
appellant in which the plaintiff had been described as the owner of the 
property. In the circumstances, the High Court was fully justified in 
reversing the finding of the courts below .. [279E, F-G; 2sOA] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3387 
of 1981 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.8.1981 of the Madhya 
Pradesh High Court in Second Appeal No. 33 of 1978. 
S.N. Kacker, San jay Sareen and S.K. Gambhi.r for the Appellant. 
S.K. Jain fort.he Respondent: 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
G 
H 
278 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[19881 Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
SHARMA, J. The appellant is in possession of a shop in a town 
in Madhya Pradesh as a tenant under the respondent who filed a suit 
out of which the present appeal arises for his eviction on the ground of 
personal necessity. The suit was dismissed by the trial court and the 
first appellate court. The High Court in second appeal has reversed the 
deci

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