Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 3946 of 2002
PETITIONER:
BHARAT SAH
RESPONDENT:
BIREN KUMAR SAH
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/02/2008
BENCH:
H.K. SEMA & MARKANDEY KATJU
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
O R D E R
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3946 OF 2002
In this appeal, plaintiff suit for declaration of title and delivery of possession w
as
dismissed by the trial Court and upheld by the first appellate Court. In second appeal,
the High Court reversed the finding of facts recorded by the trial Court and affirmed
by the first appellate Court. The High Court has framed the following purported
substantial questions of law:
"(a) Whether the courts below in rejecting the
case of sale as propounded by the plaintiff merely on the
ground that according to the appellant the land was already
sold on 24.11.1971, were right?
(b) Whether the courts below were right in
refusing the registered sale deed dated 15.07.1983 as an
additional evidence by order dated 24.04.1987 and the prayer
had been allowed on 02.07.1985?"
In our view, the two questions, which are framed by the High Court as substantial
questions of law, does not appear to
........2.
- 2 -
be so. In fact, they are questions of fact. Both the questions of fact framed by the High
Court have been elaborately dealt with by the trial Court and affirmed by the first
appellate Court. So far, with regard to the alleged registered sale deed dated
24.11.1971 is concerned, both the trial Court and the first appellate court have dealt
with elaborately after examining the evidence on record and documents and have come
to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish the registered sale deed dated
24.11.1971 as genuine documents.
Since we are of the view that the aforesaid two questions framed by the High Court
are not substantial questions of law but questions of fact which have been elaborately
dealt with by the trial Court and by the first appellate Court, the High Court, in second
appeal, was not justified in interfering with the findings of fact recorded by the two
courts.
For the reasons afore-stated, the order of the High Court is set aside. This appeal
is
allowed. No costs.