Second Appellant U/Sec 41 Punjab Courts Act 1918 cannot be used to reappraise evidence - Supreme Court

The Supreme Court noted that the power to file a second appeal under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act of 1918 cannot be used to reconsider the evidence.

The bench of Justices BR Gavai and CT Ravikumar stated, "Though the formulation of a substantial question of law is not required, the jurisdiction under Section 41 of the Punjab Act would permit only such decisions to be considered in second appeal which are contrary to the law or to some custom or usage having the force of law, or when the courts below have failed to determine some material issue of law or custom or usage having the force of law.

In this instance, the concurrent findings made by the trial court and the appellate court were overturned by the Punjab and Haryana High Court after granting the defendant's second appeal in a specific performance lawsuit.

The plaintiff relied on a recent SC ruling in Satyender vs. Saroj 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 679 in an appeal to the Apex Court. In reference to the aforementioned judgement, the court noted: "The jurisdiction under Section 41 of the Punjab Act would only allow decisions that are contrary to the law or to some custom or usage having the force of law, or when the courts below have failed to determine some material issue of law or of custom or usage having the force of law, to be considered in second appeal, it would be clear that this Court has held, even though it is not necessary to formulate a substantial question of law. The Court decided that the second appeal is not the appropriate venue for the court to reconsider or evaluate a factual issue that has already been resolved by the trial court or the appellate court. Thus, it was evident that even if Section 41 of the Punjab Act did not require the formulation of a substantial legal issue, the High Court's jurisdiction under second appeal could not be used to reconsider the evidence."

Considering the case's factual elements, the court concluded that the High Court erred by challenging the parallel conclusions of fact made by the trial court and the Appellate Court. The panel decided to grant the appeal and stated: "In this instance, it is evident that the appellant-plaintiff has already paid an amount totaling Rs. 1,50,000 on or before August 23, 1985, out of a total agreed upon of Rs. 1,65,000/. At the time the sale agreement(s) were executed, he was already in possession. Only roughly 10% of the total negotiated sum was the balance sale consideration that had to be paid. The sale deed was supposed to be finalised as soon as the respondents-defendants obtained the ITC Certificate and corrected the revenue records in 1986, but out of greed as the prices were rising, they attempted to establish third party rights. The appellant-plaintiff was compelled to bring the lawsuit in these conditions. In their written statement, the respondents-defendants also argued that they had the legal right to alienate the property under dispute. The respondents-defendants could not have been permitted to take a contrary stance that, on the one hand, the suit could not be filed before the ITC Certificate was obtained and the revenue records were corrected, and, on the other hand, that they were permitted to alienate the suit property after accepting the agreement(s) to sell and the receipt of an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/ out of the total amount of Rs. 1,65,000/"

Shivali Enterprises vs Godawari