Concurrent findings of fact based on sound evidentiary assessment cannot be reappreciated in second appeal.

The appellants (plaintiffs) filed a civil suit seeking specific performance of a contract, cancellation of a sale deed, and a perpetual injunction.

They asserted that Respondent No. 1 executed an agreement to sell land to them on 05.02.1999 for ₹50,000

The trial court (Senior Civil Judge, Parbatsar) dismissed the suit on 13.02.2023, finding the alleged agreements unproven and unreliable

The first appellate court (Addl. District Judge No.1, Parbatsar) affirmed this dismissal in August 2025, concluding that the property had already been transferred to another party via an earlier agreement dated 05.01.1999

The appellants then approached the High Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

1. Whether the findings of the lower courts regarding the non-execution of the sale agreements were perverse or based on a misreading of evidence

2. Whether a substantial question of law arises to justify interference with concurrent findings of fact under Section 100 of the CPC

The Court applied the principles governing second appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908. This section limits the High Court's jurisdiction to cases involving a "substantial question of law"

The court relied on the doctrine that concurrent findings of fact carry a presumption of correctness and cannot be disturbed unless they are patently perverse, based on no evidence, or result in a grave miscarriage of justice

It further applied the principle that the High Court cannot act as a "third court of facts" to reapreciate evidence or substitute one possible view with another

The High Court meticulously reviewed the judgments of both subordinate courts and found that they had undertaken a "threadbare appreciation" of the evidence

The court noted that the plaintiffs' evidence was riddled with inconsistencies and material contradictions, leading to the logical conclusion that the agreements dated 05.02.1999 and 31.05.1999 were not genuine

Justice Farjand Ali observed that the first appellate court, as the final court of facts, had independently reassessed the "evidentiary matrix" and provided cogent reasons for its concurrence with the trial court

The Court held that since the findings were based on objective assessment rather than conjectures, they did not meet the threshold of "perversity" required for interference

Effectively, the appellants were seeking a re-evaluation of facts, which is prohibited under Section 100 CPC

The High Court affirmed the lower courts' findings that the alleged agreements were unproved and that the property had already been legally transferred elsewhere

Consequently, the Civil Second Appeal was dismissed for being devoid of merit