Concurrent findings of fact cannot be upset in second appeal absent legal or procedural error.

In second appeal, concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and first appellate court should not be disturbed merely because another view of the evidence is possible. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had wrongly reappreciated the record, despite the findings resting on the registered sale deed and the Local Commissioner's report, and had interfered without showing any error of law or procedure. The judgment stressed that interference with concurrent factual findings is confined to legal or procedural error. The High Court's decision was therefore reversed and the dismissal of the suit restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in interfering in second appeal with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and first appellate court.

Analysis: The Court held that the evidence had been concurrently appreciated by the courts below, particularly on the basis of the registered sale deed and the Local Commissioner's report. It was emphasized that the High Court had reappreciated the record and interfered merely because it preferred a different view. The governing principle under the applicable second appellate jurisdiction is that findings of fact are not to be disturbed unless there is an error of law or procedure. Mere alleged perversity, or the possibility of another view, does not by itself justify interference with concurrent factual findings.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in setting aside the concurrent findings of fact, and its judgment was liable to be reversed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the judgment of the High Court was set aside, restoring the dismissal of the suit by the courts below.

Ratio Decidendi: In second appeal, concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with merely because another view of the evidence is possible; interference is confined to error of law or procedure.

---