In Brief
In this property dispute involving rights to a shop and chaubara (rooftop structure) in Haryana, both the trial court and first appellate court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, finding the defendants had valid title through a registered sale deed. The High Court set aside these concurrent findings, claiming the findings were perverse. The Supreme Court held that a High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact merely because they appear erroneous or are reached through alleged misappreciation of evidence. Second appellate jurisdiction under the Punjab Courts Act is limited to questions of law and procedure, not to re-examine and substitute factual findings. The Court emphasised that registered documents must be given face value and cannot be displaced by unregistered agreements. The appeal was allowed and the High Court's judgment set aside.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.