If the conclusion on the facts in evidence made by the court below is possible, there is no perversity #indianlaws

It is well settled that the first appellate court, under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, is the last court of facts unless the findings are based on evidence or are perverse. Further, in exercise of power under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court cannot interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the first appellate court which is the final court of fact, unless the same is found to be perverse. The trial court had given definite finding on structural alteration done by the tenant which was also endorsed by the first appellate court on re-appreciation of the evidence, and therefore, the High Court in second appeal was not justified in upsetting the finding which was a pure question of fact.

In an eviction petition filed by the landlord against the tenant, the trial court and first appellate court decided in favour of landlord the issue of eviction on the ground of unauthorised construction/material alteration on the plot in question against the terms of the rent agreement.

High Court in the second appeal, however reversed the findings of both the courts below holding the findings under challenge before it as perverse. High Court made reversal of findings on factual issues which became subject matter of challenge before the Supreme Court.

The Apex Court observed that ‘perversity’ has been the subject matter of umpteen number of decisions and it is well settled that the first appellate court, under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, is the last court of facts unless the findings are based on evidence or are perverse. Further, in exercise of power under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court cannot interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the first appellate court which is the final court of fact, unless the same is found to be perverse.

In the instant case there was clear and cogent evidence on the side of the plaintiff/appellant on there being structural alteration in the premises rented out, without his consent. Material alteration of a property is not a fact confined to the exclusive/ and personal knowledge of the owner but a matter of evidence, be it from the owner himself or any other witness speaking on behalf of the plaintiff conversant with the facts and the situation. Even the witnesses on behalf of the tenant, partially admitted that the there was some structural changes.

The trial court had given definite finding on structural alteration, also endorsed by the first appellate court on re-appreciation of the evidence, and therefore, the High Court in second appeal was not justified in upsetting the finding which was a pure question of fact. Even if the finding of fact is wrong, that by itself will not constitute a question of law. The wrong finding should stem out on a complete misreading of evidence or it should be based only on conjectures and surmises. Safest approach on perversity is the classic approach on the reasonable man’s inference on the facts. To him, if the conclusion on the facts in evidence made by the court below is possible, there is no perversity. If not, the finding is perverse. Inadequacy of evidence or a different reading of evidence is not perversity.

[Damodar Lal vs. Sohan Devi and Ors.]

(SC, 05.01.2016 – Civil Appeal No. 231 of 2015)