AYYA PILLAI Vs. SUBEDA BEEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. O. Venkatchalam, learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel took the Court through the judgment sought to be revised and also the points for consideration framed by the Courts below and the substantial questions of law set out in the grounds of Second Appeal Nos.360 to 362 of 2001. So far as the judgment of this Court is concerned this Court had considered the substantial questions of law advanced by Mr. O. Venkatachalam, learned counsel for the appellant in all the Second Appeals. On fact this court held that they are not substantial questions of law and that the judgments of the Courts below are not liable to be interfered with.

(2.) THEREAFTER, the present petitions for review have been filed under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Counsel's attempt is to re-argue the entire matters in the Second Appeal's on merit, which is not permissible in a review petition. This Court, after consideration of the two substantial questions of law put forth by the learned Counsel held that they are no questions of law but they are findings of the facts, which the two Courts have concurrently recorded while assigning valid reasons. Appreciation of the evidence by the two Court's below is not liable to be interfered with in exercise of Powers conferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, unless it is shown that the appreciation of evidence is perverse or vitiated by error apparent on the face of record. This is not the case here. Hence, this Court held that the two questions of law advanced by the learned Counsel in the Second Appeals are not the questions of law and they are mere questions of fact. Being concurrent findings of facts, this Court dismissed the Second Appeals.