H.P. Pyarejan vs Dasappa(Dead) By L.Rs. & Ors on 6 February, 2006
In Madvan
Nair Vs. Bhaskar Pillai (2005) 10, SCC, 533,
Harjeet Singh Vs. Amrik Singh (2005) 12, SCC, 270,
H.P. Pyarejan Vs. Dasappa, JT 2006(2), SC, 228, and
Gurdev Kaur and others Vs. Kaki and others (JT 2006
(5) SC, 72, while interpreting the scope of Section
100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the principle
of law, laid down, was that the High Court, has no
jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of
fact, arrived at, by the trial Court, and first
Appellate Court, even if, the same are grossly
Regular Second Appeal No.916 of 2008
-10-
erroneous as the legislative intention, was very
clear that the legislature never wanted second
appeal to become a "third trial on facts" or "one
more dice in the gamble." It was further held that
the jurisdiction of the High Court in interfering
with the judgments of the Courts below, is confined
only to the hearing of substantial questions of
law. The plaintiffs claimed their right of
ownership, in the property, on the ground that
they were descendants of Balli, who according to
them, had right in land measuring 164 bighas 17
biswas, in dispute, at the time of first
settlement in the year 1880. No document vide which
Balli allegedly acquired any right, in the land, in
dispute, was produced. No other revenue record was
also produced on the record, showing that Balli, at
any point of time, was the owner in possession of
the land, in dispute. The main reliance of the
plaintiffs was on the pedigree tables Ex. P-2,
Ex.P-3. However, on the basis of these pedigree
tables, the plaintiffs could not be conferred any
right of ownership in the property, in dispute.