- The title of the case is Balasubramanian vs. M. Arockiasamy (dead) CA 2066 OF 2012.
- The case was decided by the Supreme Court.
- A Bench of CJI NV Ramana, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Hrishikesh Roy heard the case and finally disposed of it.
- The plaintiff, in this case, filed a lawsuit seeking a perpetual injunction.
- This was to prevent the defendants from interfering with the plaint schedule property's peaceful possession and enjoyment.
- The plaintiff failed to prove possession of the suit schedule property, and the Trial Court dismissed the suit.
- These findings were overturned by the First Appellate Court, which dismissed the case. On the other hand, the High Court upheld the Trial Court's dismissal order in the defendant's second appeal.
- The appeal was hence, before the Supreme Court.
Observations of the Court
- The Supreme Court Bench noted that there is minimal scope for reappraising the evidence in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code or interfering with the trial court's and first appellate Court's findings of fact.
- The Court also noted that before the High Court, there were conflicting factual findings.
- The Bench stated that in such a case, reappreciating evidence was not permitted, except when perverse. Still, the High Court could have considered the case pleaded, the evidence presented, and the findings of the two lower courts, one of which had to be approved.
- In conclusion, the Supreme Court observed that just because the High Court refers to specific facts in the case to raise and conclude on a legal question does not mean that the facts and evidence have been re-appreciated.
- Finally, it was stated that the question of law for consideration will not arise in the abstract but will emerge from the facts unique to each case and that there cannot be a straitjacket formula.
- The Bench dismissed the appeal after considering other aspects of the case.