CHHAJU RAM Vs. JAG RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this special appeal the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge dated 30. 11. 1990 has been challenged.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the respondents (plaintiff) filed a suit in the court of Additional District Judge, Kishangarhbas on 5. 2. 1987 for specific performance of contract which was dismissed on 23. 1. 1990. THE following issues were fra-med which was decided in favour of defendants, now appellants before us. 1-

(3.) RELIANCE has been placed on the decision of this court in the case of Janki-dass & Anr. vs. Mahant Dhangir & Ors. (2), wherein following the decision given in the case of Kedarnath vs. Sitaram (3), it was held that in an appeal u/s. 18 it would be open to the court of appeal to consider all the points necessary to be investigated for the determination of the contention of the correctness of the decree under appeal, and that such consideration could not be limited to any particular questionof fact or law, although on a question of fact, they would be extremely slow to interfere where there had been concurrent decision of courts below on such a question. Another decision given in the case of Suraj Narain vs. Gordhan (4) is also referred in the case of Jankidass where it was observed as under: ``in the absence of any such limitation in Section 18 (1) of the Rajas- than High Court Ordinance, it cannot be argued on the analogy of Sec. 100 of the Civil Procedure Code that the High Court would not be entitled to examine in appeal the findings of fact arrived at by the Judge against whose judgment, the appeal is directed. It would not be inappropriate if in an appeal against the judgment of a single Judge the High Court goes into facts and, where necessary, even interfers with findings based on them. Of course, in doing so, the Court will always keep in view the salutary principle that ordinarily it should not interfere with findings of fact, unless the findings are manifestly erroneous and against the weight of evidence on record. ''