Case: Madamanchi Ramappa &amp; Anr Vs. Muthalur Bojjappa

comment was made by him in respect of the cist receipts on which both the courts of fact had acted. In his opinion, the said documents were also not genuine and could not be accepted as reliable. He then referred to the fact that the appellants had offered security in proceedings between the respondent and his judgment debtor Boya Krishnappa, and held that the said conduct destroyed the appellants case; and he also relied on the fact that the lease-deeds produced by the appellants had been disbelieved and that also weakened their case. It is on these considerations that the learned Judge set aside the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, allowed the second appeal preferred by the respondent and directed that the appellants suit should be dismissed with costs throughout. It is the validity of this decree which is challenged before us by the appellants and the principal ground on which the challenge rests is that in reversing concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below, the learned Judge has clearly contravened the provisions of S. 100 of the Code.10. The question about the limits of the powers conferred on the High Court in dealing with second appeals has been considered by High Courts in India and by the Privy Council on several occasions. One of the earliest pronouncements of the Privy Council on this point is to be found in the case of Mst. Durga Chowdhrain, 17 Ind App 122 (PC). In the case of Deity Pattabhiramaswamy v. S. Hanymayya, AIR 1959 SC 57 at p. 59 this Court had occasion to refer to the said decision of the Privy Council and it was constrained to observe that"notwithstanding such clear and authoritative pronouncements on the scope of the provisions of Section 100, C. P. C., some learned Judges of the High Courts are disposing of second appeals as if they were first appeals. This introduces, apart from the fact that the High Court assumes and exercises a jurisdiction which it does not possess, a gambling element in litigation and confusion in the mind of the litigant public."On this ground, this Court set aside the second appellate decision which had been brought before it by the appellants.11. In K. Ramchandra Ayyar v. Ramalingam Chettiar, AIR 1963 SC 302 this Court had occasion to revert to the same subject once again. The true legal position in regard to the powers of the second appellate Court under Section 100 was once more examined and it was pointed out that the learned Judges of the High Courts should bear in mind the caution and warning pronounced by the Privy Council in the case of Mst. Durga Chowdhrain, 17 Ind App 122 (PC) and should not interfere with findings of fact.12. It appears that the decision of this Court in Deity Pattabhiramaswamy AIR 1959 SC 57 was in fact cited before the learned single Judge, but he was inclined to take the view that some aspects of the provisions contained in Section 100 of the Code had not been duly considered by this Court and so, he thought that it was open to him to interfere with the conclusions of the Courts below in the present appeal. According to the learned Judge, it is open to the second appellate Court to interfere with the conclusions of fact recorded by the District Judge not only where the said conclusions are based on no evidence but also where the said conclusions are based on evidence which the High Court considers insufficient to support them.In other words, the learned Judge seems to think that the adequacy or sufficiency of evidence to sustain a conclusion of fact is a matter of law which can be effectively raised in a second appeal. In our opinion, this is clearly a misconception of the true legal position. The admissibility of evidences is no doubt a point of law, but once it is shown that the evidence on which Courts of fact have acted was admissible and relevant, it is not open to a party feeling aggrieved by the findings recorded by the Courts of fact to contend before the High Court in second appeal that the said evidence is not sufficient to justify the findings of fact in question. It has been always recognised that the sufficiency or adequacy of evidence to support a finding of fact is a matter for decision of the Court of fads and cannot be agitated in a second appeal. Sometimes, this position is expressed by saying that like all questions of fact, sufficiency or adequacy of evidence in support of a case is also left to the jury for its verdict. This position has always been accepted without dissent and it can e stated without any doubt that it enunciates what can be properly characterised as an elementary proposition. Therefore whenever this Court is satisfied that in dealing with a second appeal, the High Court has, either unwittingly and in a casual manner, or deliberately as in this case, contravened the limits prescribed by Sec. 100, it becomes the duty of this Court to intervene and give effect to the said provisions. It may be that in some cases, the High Court dealing with the second appeal is inclined to take the view that what it regards to be justice or equity of the case has not been served by the findings of fact recorded by Courts of fact; but on such occasions it is necessary to remember that what is administered in Courts is justice according to law and considerations of fair play and equity however important they may be, must yield to clear and express provisions of the law. If in reaching its decisions in second appeals, the High Court contravenes the express provisions of Section 100, it would inevitably introduce in such decisions an element of disconcerting unpredictability which is usually associated with gambling; and that is a reproach which judicial process must constantly and scrupulously endeavour to avoid.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]2. It appears that the decision of this Court in Deity Pattabhiramaswamy AIR 1959 SC 57   was in fact cited before the learned single Judge, but he was inclined to take the view that some aspects of the provisions contained in Section 100 of the Code had not been duly considered by this Court and so, he thought that it was open to him to interfere with the conclusions of the Courts below in the present appeal. According to the learned Judge, it is open to the second appellate Court to interfere with the conclusions of fact recorded by the District Judge not only where the said conclusions are based on no evidence but also where the said conclusions are based on evidence which the High Court considers insufficient to support them.In other words, the learned Judge seems to think that the adequacy or sufficiency of evidence to sustain a conclusion of fact is a matter of law which can be effectively raised in a second appeal. In our opinion, this is clearly a misconception of the true legal position. The admissibility of evidences is no doubt a point of law, but once it is shown that the evidence on which Courts of fact have acted was admissible and relevant, it is not open to a party feeling aggrieved by the findings recorded by the Courts of fact to contend before the High Court in second appeal that the said evidence is not sufficient to justify the findings of fact in question. It has been always recognised that the sufficiency or adequacy of evidence to support a finding of fact is a matter for decision of the Court of fads and cannot be agitated in a second appeal. Sometimes, this position is expressed by saying that like all questions of fact, sufficiency or adequacy of evidence in support of a case is also left to the jury for its verdict. This position has always been accepted without dissent and it can e stated without any doubt that it enunciates what can be properly characterised as an elementary proposition. Therefore whenever this Court is satisfied that in dealing with a second appeal, the High Court has, either unwittingly and in a casual manner, or deliberately as in this case, contravened the limits prescribed by Sec. 100, it becomes the duty of this Court to intervene and give effect to the said provisions. It may be that in some cases, the High Court dealing with the second appeal is inclined to take the view that what it regards to be justice or equity of the case has not been served by the findings of fact recorded by Courts of fact; but on such occasions it is necessary to remember that what is administered in Courts is justice according to law and considerations of fair play and equity however important they may be, must yield to clear and express provisions of the law. If in reaching its decisions in second appeals, the High Court contravenes the express provisions of Section 100, it would inevitably introduce in such decisions an element of disconcerting unpredictability which is usually associated with gambling; and that is a reproach which judicial process must constantly and scrupulously endeavour to avoid.