SANTOKBEN WD/O HARJI RAICHAND Vs. CHANDULAL FULCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) xxx xxx xxx.

(2.) xxx xxx xxx.

(3.) Before proceeding with the merits of the matter it would be pertinent to bear in mind the principles laid down by the Supreme Court while dealing with the revisions arising under Section 29(2) of the said Act. The Supreme Court in the case of Patel Valmik Himatlal & Ors. v. Patel Mohanlal Muljibhai (1998(2) GLH 736 = AIR 1998 SC 3325), while approving and reiterating the principles laid down in its earlier decision in the case of Helper Girdharbhai v. Saiyad Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri (AIR 1987 SC 1782), held that High Court cannot function as a court of appeal, cannot reappreciate the evidence on record, cannot discard concurrent findings of fact based on evidence recorded by the courts below, and cannot interfere on grounds of inadequacy or insufficiency of evidence, and cannot interfere, except in cases where conclusions drawn by the courts below are on the basis of no evidence at all, or are perverse. A different interpretation on facts is also not possible merely because another view on the same set of facts may just be possible.