Summary
The Court set aside a High Court decree that reversed concurrent findings in a property-injunction suit by reappreciating evidence. Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act continued to govern second appeals in Punjab and Haryana under the Constitution Bench ruling in Pankajakshi. Although formulation of a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC was unnecessary, interference still required the statutory grounds of legal or procedural error. The High Court’s fresh assessment of the local commissioner’s report did not justify its intervention.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could reverse concurrent factual findings in second appeal by reassessing the local commissioner’s report.
- Whether Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act or amended Section 100 CPC governed the second appeal.
Provisions considered
- Section 41, Punjab Courts Act, 1918Second appellate jurisdiction remained confined to the statutory grounds involving law or procedure. It did not authorise reassessment of factual findings merely because they appeared erroneous or overlooked evidence. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18)
- Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The Constitution Bench ruling established that amended Section 100 did not displace the applicable Section 41 regime in Punjab and Haryana; framing a substantial question of law was therefore unnecessary, without enlarging factual review. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18)
Held
- The local commissioner’s report supported aspects of the plaintiffs’ account about the unfinished staircase, holes in the roof and dimensions of the upper room, and had not been challenged by objection or cross-examination. The lower courts nevertheless returned concurrent findings against the suit. Their treatment of that evidence did not by itself confer jurisdiction for factual reassessment in second appeal. (¶¶ 14, 15, 18)
- Pankajakshi held that Section 41 continued in force and expressly overruled the contrary smaller-bench ruling in Kulwant Kaur. The absence of a requirement to frame a substantial question of law did not permit interference simply because another factual view seemed preferable. (¶¶ 16, 17)
- Section 41 confined intervention to its grounds of legal or procedural error. The High Court’s conclusions rested entirely on reappreciation of the record and could not sustain reversal of the concurrent findings. Its judgment was set aside and the appeal allowed without costs. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs. High Court judgment reversing the concurrent dismissal of the suit set aside.