Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 100 — Second Appeal
Scope — Interference with findings of fact — Principles reiterated.
Under Section 100 CPC, the High Court cannot interfere with findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court, which is the final Court of facts, unless such findings are:
(i) contrary to mandatory provisions of law,
(ii) contrary to settled legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court,
(iii) based on inadmissible evidence, or
(iv) arrived at without evidence.
Where findings are based on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and supported by admissions, no interference is warranted.
(Paras 14, 20–21)
Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 38
Permanent injunction — Essential requirement — Possession on date of suit.
In a suit filed under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, the plaintiff must establish actual, peaceful possession of the suit property as on the date of filing of the suit.
Initial burden lies upon the plaintiff to prove such possession.
(Para 16)
Suit for Permanent Injunction — Maintainability — Title dispute
Injunction simpliciter — When maintainable.
Where plaintiffs plead possession supported by registered documents and the defendant admits construction of a compound wall by the plaintiffs, a suit for permanent injunction is maintainable.
Mere pendency of a separate declaratory suit filed by the defendant does not bar grant of injunction when possession is established.
(Paras 16–20)
Admissions — Evidentiary value
Admissions in written statement and cross-examination — Binding effect.
Admissions by the defendant that:
• plaintiffs constructed the compound wall,
• there exist two boundary walls separating the properties, and
• plaintiffs are neighbours in possession,
constitute substantive evidence establishing possession of the plaintiffs.
(Paras 17, 19)
Boundary dispute — Compound wall
Where existence and construction of compound wall by the plaintiffs is admitted by the defendant, such wall establishes separation of properties and supports the plaintiffs’ case of possession.
(Paras 17–19)
Injunction suit — Title enquiry — Limited scope
In a suit for injunction, title is examined only incidentally to ascertain possession with semblance of right.
Where possession is admitted and proved, the Court need not decide title in an injunction suit.
(Paras 18–20)
Declaratory suit — Pendency
Effect on injunction proceedings.
Dismissal of a comprehensive suit for declaration and mandatory injunction filed by the defendant, and pendency of appeal therefrom, does not disentitle the plaintiffs from protection of possession by way of injunction.
(Paras 15, 18–20)
First Appellate Court — Re-appreciation of evidence
Where the First Appellate Court re-appreciates the entire evidence on record and records findings supported by documents and admissions, the judgment does not suffer from illegality.
(Paras 16, 20)
Concurrent findings — Exceptions
High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings unless courts below:
• ignored material evidence,
• acted on no evidence, or
• applied law erroneously.
Present case does not fall under any such exception.
(Paras 20–21)
RATIO DECIDENDI
-
In a suit for permanent injunction under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, proof of possession as on the date of suit is the decisive factor.
-
Admissions by the defendant regarding possession and construction of boundary wall are sufficient to establish plaintiffs’ possession.
-
A suit for injunction simpliciter is maintainable where possession is proved and title is not required to be conclusively adjudicated.
-
Pendency of a declaratory suit relating to title does not bar grant of injunction to protect existing possession.
-
Concurrent findings of fact by courts below, supported by evidence and admissions, are not open to interference under Section 100 CPC.
