Concurrent findings under Article 136 may be disturbed for material irregularity, but unproved entrustment defeats liability.

Concurrent findings of fact are ordinarily not disturbed under Article 136, but interference is justified where material irregularity, failure of justice, or undue hardship is shown; Article 142 also supports complete justice in an appropriate case. The plaintiff's claim of entrustment of 250 tolas of gold failed because the alleged purchase, source of funds, absence of account books or corroborating witnesses, delayed demand, lack of prompt complaint, and denial of execution of the document rendered the transaction unreliable. On that evidentiary basis, no liability was established and the suit failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Supreme Court could interfere under Article 136 with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below; (ii) whether the plaintiff proved entrustment of 250 tolas of gold to the defendants and the consequent liability.

Issue (i): Whether the Supreme Court could interfere under Article 136 with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below.

Analysis: Ordinarily, concurrent findings of fact are not interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136. That restraint is not absolute. Interference is justified where material irregularities have affected the findings or where refusal to interfere would result in failure of justice or undue hardship. Article 142 also recognises the Court's power to do complete justice in an appropriate case.

Conclusion: The Court held that interference with the concurrent findings was permissible in the facts of the case.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff proved entrustment of 250 tolas of gold to the defendants and the consequent liability.

Analysis: The Court found the plaintiff's version unsupported by reliable evidence. The alleged purchase of the gold, the source of funds, the absence of account books or corroborating witnesses, the unusual manner of entrustment, the delayed demand, the failure to complain promptly, and the denial of execution of the document all undermined the claim. The surrounding circumstances made the alleged transaction artificial and unworthy of belief, and no liability could arise on the basis of the disputed document.

Conclusion: The Court held that entrustment was not proved and that the defendants were not liable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the decrees of the courts below were set aside, and the suit was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent findings of fact may be interfered with under Article 136 where material irregularity or failure of justice is shown, and a claim based on an alleged entrustment must fail when the underlying transaction is not proved by reliable evidence.

---