Can Second Appeal be filed for Concurrent Findings of Fact? Punjab and Haryana HC Answers
Copy Link
Share
Save
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reinforced the stringent boundaries that High Court cannot interfere in concurrent findings of lower court. The matter pertains to property title and identification, challenged in a second appeal. The Bench underscored that a plaintiff’s failure to prove their own title through cogent documentary evidence, such as a verified site plan or demarcation report, is fatal to a claim for recovery of possession, regardless of omissions in the opponent's cross-examination.
Justice Deepak Gupta scrutinized the dismissal of a suit seeking declaration of ownership and recovery of possession. The appellants challenged the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, which had concurrently held that the plaintiffs failed to establish their title or the alleged encroachment by a nursing home.
Key Takeaways
- Strict Adherence to Section 100 CPC: The High Court clarified that the second appellate jurisdiction is not a third opportunity for re-appreciating evidence in concurrent findings of fact, but is strictly reserved for substantial questions of law.
- Plaintiff's Burden of Proof: A plaintiff seeking declaration and possession must stand on the strength of their own title; an omission in the defendant's cross-examination does not relieve them of this primary burden.
- Primacy of Official Records: In disputes involving land identification, official verification reports by revenue authorities carry significant weight, especially when the claimant fails to produce a contradictory demarcation report.
- Impact of Delay: Long-standing possession (over 25 years in this case) admitted by the plaintiff's witnesses can be considered inconsistent with claims of recent encroachment.
Second Appeal and Concurrent Findings of Fact
The Punjab and Haryana High Court emphasized that the jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC is restricted. It noted that the appellants essentially sought a fresh appreciation of evidence, which is impermissible unless the findings are perverse or founded upon a misreading of material evidence.
The Bench discussed the settled law on High Court interference in Concurrent Findings of Lower Court that "It is settled that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in second appeal merely because another view of the evidence is possible. The present case does not disclose any substantial question of law, much less one warranting admission of the appeal under Section 100 CPC. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to point out any material piece of evidence which has been perversely ignored by the Courts below or any finding which is demonstrably contrary to the record."
Citing the precedent in Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) by LRs., the Court reiterated that a question of fact, even if the appreciation appears erroneous, does not ordinarily transform into a substantial question of law. This principle was further bolstered by Hero Vinoth (Minor) v. Seshammal ( "(2006) 5 SCC 545": 2006 CaseBase(SC) 569), which limits interference to exceptional circumstances where findings are based on no evidence or ignore material facts.
Ratio
A substantial question of law under Section 100 of the CPC must be a question that is debatable and material to the decision of the case, rather than a mere question of appreciation or re-appreciation of evidence. Concurrent findings of fact remain binding unless the appellant demonstrates that such findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or arrived at by applying an erroneous legal principle.
Background
The dispute originated when the plaintiffs (appellants) sought a declaration that they were the owners of land in Bhiwani as successors of one Har Swaroop. They alleged that a portion of their land had been encroached upon by the defendant's nursing home. The defendant contended that the nursing home was purchased via registered sale deeds and had existed since 1988.
The Trial Court dismissed the suit, noting that the plaintiffs failed to prove the identity of the encroached property or their title. Specifically, the site plan relied upon by the plaintiffs was not proved by any competent witness. On appeal, the First Appellate Court affirmed this, noting a Tehsildar's report which stated the nursing home was not situated on the plaintiffs' claimed Khasra number. Furthermore, the 2007-08 jamabandi recorded the Municipal Committee, Bhiwani, as the owner, not the plaintiffs' predecessor. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, finding no substantial question of law, dismissed the second appeal.
Case Details:
Case No.: RSA-2330-2025 (O&M)
Case Title: Ramwati and others Vs. Ram Kumar Singh (deceased) through Legal heirs and another
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. S.K. Chauhan, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate
Source: 2026 CaseBase(PNH) 19879
Breaking News
