While dealing with a second appeal u/s 100 CPC, Justice Sandeep Sharma noted that the High Court is restrained from re-appreciating the evidence available on record unless the judgments of the courts below are found perverse, but even when there was no perversity as such in the current scenario, the case has just been discussed based upon a correct appreciation of evidence and it deserved to be upheld.
Brief Facts:
The current regular second appeal has been filed under Section 100 CPC challenging the judgment and decree dt. 26.02.2009, which in turn affirmed the judgment and decree dated 05.03.2008 whereby a suit for possession had been filed by the respondent or the plaintiff which was partly decreed.
The initial suit was filed as a suit for possession and recovery by the plaintiff and it was averred that in 1992, the police department illegally constructed two rooms on the suit land for running a wireless station. Then based on evidence, the learned trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for vacant and peaceful possession of the land but dismissed the suit for recovery. Both parties then filed an appeal. The plaintiff’s first appeal was accepted and the defendant’s appeal was dismissed, thereon the defendant filed the present appeal.
Observations of the Court:
After going through the arguments and the pieces of evidence, the Hon’ble court was not persuaded to agree with the learned counsel of the state, that is the defendant in the original case (hereafter referred to as the defendant). They have tried to establish that the suit property was in possession of the Jakhu Temple Trust Committee and that the plaintiff is not the owner of the land, but the court noted that the perusal of the evidence shows that the plaintiff was the sole owner of the suit property. It was also contended by the defendant that the land was allotted to them by Deputy Commissioner, Shimla who at that time was the chairman of the Jakhu trust committee, but since the temple committee was never in possession of the suit land, there cannot be a further hand over of the possession of the suit property to the police department. It was further noted by the court that some portion of the land was gifted to the Jakhu Temple trust but there is nothing on record suggestive of the fact that suit land was also part of gifted land. The court then concluded that both the learned courts below have meticulously dealt with each and every aspect of the matter and there is no scope of interference with their judgment.
Then the court went on to deal with the questions of maintainability and jurisdiction of the court. A reference was made to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Laxmidevamma and Others vs. Ranganath and Others, where it was held that exercises of jurisdiction under section 100 CPC, concurrent findings of fact cannot upset the High Court unless the findings so recorded are shown perverse. That is, in normal circumstances High courts while exercising powers under Section 100 CPC, is restrained from re-appreciating the evidence available on record. Accordingly, it was held that there is no perversity as such in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by learned Courts below, rather same are based upon a correct appreciation of evidence as such, deserve to be upheld.
The decision of the Court:
The appeal was dismissed.
Case Title: State of HP and another v. Sanjeev Pandit
Coram: Justice Sandeep Sharma
Case No.: RSA No. 391 of 2009
Advocate for the Appellants: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Rahul Thakur and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocates General
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Anubhav Chopra
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
