In Brief
Naresh and others sued for partition and possession of half their share in disputed property against Hemant and others. The trial court and appellate court found in their favour. The High Court, on second appeal, reversed these concurrent findings, arguing misappreciation of evidence. The Supreme Court held that under Section 100 CPC, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact merely because it disagrees with the appreciation of evidence. Perversity alone does not justify interference. The Supreme Court restored the orders of the trial and appellate courts and allowed the appeal with costs.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.