LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Damodar Lal v. Sohan Devi and Others

Civil Appeal · Neutral citation not assigned (Civil Appeal No. 231 of 2015)Decided 5 Jan 2016
Civil Appeal No. 231 of 2015
Chief Justice T.S. Thakur · Justice Kurian Joseph

Background

A landlord sought eviction of his tenants in 1974 on the ground that they had made unauthorised permanent construction/material alteration to the rented plot, changing a vacant plot into a shop and godown. Both the trial court (1989) and the first appellate court (2000) found as a fact, after reviewing the evidence, that the tenants had indeed made such structural changes without the landlord's consent, and ruled in the landlord's favour. However, in a second appeal, the Rajasthan High Court reversed these concurrent findings of fact and ruled in the tenants' favour, prompting the landlord to appeal to the Supreme Court after more than 40 years of litigation.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that a High Court exercising second appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure can only interfere with concurrent findings of fact from the trial and first appellate courts if those findings are "perverse", i.e., arrived at by ignoring relevant evidence, relying on irrelevant material, or so unreasonable that no rational person could reach them. The Court found that the trial court's and first appellate court's findings here were reasonable and well-supported by evidence, and that the High Court's attempt to reach a different conclusion was "wholly wrong, if not, perverse" and impermissible in a second appeal confined to questions of law. It therefore allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the eviction decree, while granting the tenants time until 31 March 2017 to vacate on condition they pay use-and-occupation charges and furnish an undertaking, failing which the decree would become immediately executable.

Lesson Learnt

A High Court cannot re-decide questions of fact that two lower courts have already agreed upon just because it would have assessed the evidence differently: in a second appeal, it may interfere only when the lower courts' factual findings are genuinely perverse (unsupported by evidence or irrational), not merely debatable.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Smt Nisha Sharma vs. M/S Intec Capital Limited and Ors

The Court held that because the property had already been specifically identified in the pending execution case before the transfer happened, the transfer remained subject to the execution proceedings under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, and didn't place the share beyond the lender's reach. It also found the appellant couldn't reopen the same ownership argument a second time, since an identical objection had already been rejected earlier and not appealed, and that the surrounding facts (payment timing, continued family occupation, auction bought by a relative) suggested the transfer was intended to defeat the lender's claim. The appeal was dismissed and the auction sale of the guarantor's half-share was upheld.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Shakeel Qureshi & Ors. vs. Rashid Qureshi & Ors.

The Court held that since the plaintiffs' own claims were entirely built on the MoU, the MoU's exclusionary jurisdiction clause (Clause 10, conferring jurisdiction only on Bareilly courts) had to be examined and applied. It rejected the plaintiffs' "approbate and reprobate" argument (that defendants couldn't rely on the MoU in other suits yet deny Delhi's jurisdiction here), finding the defendants' conduct in earlier, differently-framed suits didn't amount to such inconsistency. The plaint was returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC to be filed before a court of competent jurisdiction at Bareilly, without any opinion expressed on the merits of the fraud/breach allegations.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

M/S Siddhivinayak Coal Carriers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Coal India Limited & Ors.

The Division Bench held that an appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 only lies against orders specifically listed in Order XLIII of the CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, relying on Supreme Court authority (Kandla Export Corporation) confirming this is an exhaustive, not illustrative, list. Since an order converting a summary suit into a regular suit isn't among the orders listed in Order XLIII, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Ramesh vs. Smt. Geeta

The High Court agreed with the lower courts that the document recorded only a loan transaction, not a sale, so the appellant's argument about an illegal/void sale (under Section 23 of the Contract Act) didn't apply. Since the respondent was relying on her own allotment rights rather than enforcing the disputed document, and the appeal really just disputed how the evidence had been weighed, no substantial legal question arose, and the second appeal was dismissed.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Pooja Singh vs. Gulab Devi Prasad Singh

While the appeal was pending, the parties settled the matter in execution proceedings for Rs. 9,50,000, and part of that settlement had already been acted upon. Rs. 1,98,000 had been paid to the Plaintiff, and the balance of Rs. 7,52,000 had been deposited in the High Court. The Court held that the Defendant could not go back on a settlement that had been acted upon, and that no monetary dispute remained for adjudication. The Court directed that the deposited balance be released to the Plaintiff and disposed of the appeal in terms of the settlement.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Richmond Global School vs. Shri Vijay Kumar Jain

The Court considered the legal meaning of "sufficient cause", explaining that it requires the party to show that it was not negligent or lacking in bona fides, and that the facts must support the exercise of discretion judiciously. Finding that the District Judge's view was correct, the High Court held that the appeal was devoid of merit and dismissed it, with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case