HARBHAGW Vs. ABDUL MAJID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has impugned the judgment dated 21.9.1994. The appellant before this Court was the defendant before the Trial Court. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 13.1.1988 had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent namely Mohd.Majid.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are as follows:

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon a judgment reported in IV(2010) SLT 419 S.C.Bharatha Matha and Anr. Vs. Vijay Renganathan and Ors. to support his submission that the High Court can interfere with the finding of fact even at the time of a second appeal if the findings are perverse. It is submitted that in AIR 1971 SC 1049 Radha Nath Seal Vs. Haripada Jana and Ors. where the first Appellate Court had failed to consider material evidence which was in the form of a document, interference by the second Appellate Court was called for. Reliance has also been placed upon AIR 1993 SC 398 Shri Bhagwan Sharma Vs. Smt. Bani Ghosh. It is submitted that while considering the scope of the powers of the second Appellate Court, it was held that High Court must hear the parties fully with reference to the entire evidence on record relevant to the issue in question; conclusion cannot be pre- judged. For the same proposition reliance has also been placed upon AIR 1994 SC 532 Sundra Nicka Vadiyar Vs. Ramaswami Ayyar where crucial documents which were vital for deciding the question of possession between the parties had been overlooked; it was held that there was an infirmity in the finding of the Courts below which calls for interference in a second appeal.