LexKRISHNAN versus BACKIAM AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
KRISHNAN A v. BACKIAM AND ANR. SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 (A.K.MATHURANDMARKANDEYKATJU,JJ.l B Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-s. JOO-Second appeal-Scope of- Held: High Court in second appeal cannot interfere with finding of fact recorded by First Appellate Court uls 96 CPC-Finding of fact though can C be challenged in second appeal on the ground that the same is perverse or based on no evidence-But not without framing question to that effect-In the facts of the case, no such question was formulated by High Court-Hence interference of the High Court with the finding of fact by First Appellate Court, not permissible. Appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction against respondent-defendant alleging that the land in question had been mortgaged D to him by the owner of the property 'R' (alia.s 'L'). Thereafter, the land was sold to him by a sale deed. The sale deed was later rectified by another sale deed. Defendant contested the suit alleging that the owner of the land was 'R' and he is assisting her in cultivating the land; and that the three documents E were forged. The suit was dismissed. First appeal was decided in favour of the appellant holding that 'R' and 'L' are one and the same person; that the sale deed was proved by PWs 3 and 1; and that the burden to prove the documents as forged was on the defendant. High Court allowed the second appeal thereagainst. Hence the present appeal. F Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. High Court has practically acted as a First Appellate Court and has re-appreciated the findings of fact of the Subordinate Judge which it could not validly do in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section I 00 CPC. G (Para 12] (905-8, CJ 2. Under the amended Section 100 CPC, the High Court has to frame ~ substantial questions of law and can decide the second appeal only on those questions framed. A perusal of the questions framed shows that no question ~1 H 902 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 9 S.C.R. A of law was framed as to whether the finding of fact of the First Appellate Court that 'L' and 'R' are one and the same person, is based on no evidence or is perverse. [Para 10) [904-F, G] 3. First Appellate Court under Section 96 CPC is the last court of facts. The High Court in second appeal under Section 100 CPC cannot interfere B with the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court under Section 96 CPC. No doubt, the findings of fact of the First Appellate Court can be challenged in second appeal on the ground that the said findings are based on no evidence or are perverse, but even in that case a question of law has to be formulated and framed by the High Court to that effect. In the present case C no question was framed by the High Court as to whether the finding of the First Appellate Court that 'R' and 'L' are one and the same person, is a finding based on no evidence or is perverse. Hence the findings of the First Appellate Court that 'R' and 'L' are one and the same person, could not have been interfered with by the High Court. (Para 11) (904-G; 905-A, BJ D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :·civil Appeal No. 3713 of2001. From the Judgment and Order dated 31.1.2000 of the High Court of Madras in Second Appeal No. 1927 of 1999. P. V. Yogeshwaran, M.A. Chinnasamy, H.B. Chauhan and K. Kumar for E the Appellant. S.R. Sharma and S. Srinivasan for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ). t F MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. I. This appeal has been filed against the 1 G impugned judgment of the Madras High Court dated 3 I. l .2000 in Second Appeal No.1927of1999. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The plaintiff-appellant Krishnan filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the respondent-defendant alleging that the property in dispute had been earlier mortgaged to him on 30.9.1988 and then sold to him by Ramayee (alias Lakshmi) by registered sale deed dated 25.9.1989 which was also rectified by another registered sale deed dated l 0.9 .1990. It was H alleged in the suit that an attempt was being made to dispossess the plaintiff KRISHNAN v. BACKIAM [MARKANDEY KA TJU, J. ] 903 and hence injunction may be granted in his favour. 4. The defendant filed a written statement in the suit in which it was contended that Ramayee had neither executed the registered mortgage deed dated 30.9 .I 9:1!, nor the registered sale deed dated 25.9.1989, nor the re
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.