http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  3946 of 2002

PETITIONER: BHARAT SAH

RESPONDENT: BIREN KUMAR SAH

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/02/2008

BENCH: H.K. SEMA & MARKANDEY KATJU

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

O R D E R CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3946 OF 2002

       In this appeal, plaintiff suit for declaration of title and delivery of possession w as  dismissed by the trial Court and upheld by the first appellate Court.  In second appeal,  the High Court reversed the finding of facts recorded by the trial Court and affirmed  by the first appellate Court.  The High Court has framed the following purported  substantial questions of law:         "(a)    Whether the courts below in rejecting the  case of sale as propounded by the plaintiff merely on the  ground that according to the appellant the land was already  sold on 24.11.1971, were right?

       (b)     Whether the courts below were right in  refusing the registered sale deed dated 15.07.1983 as an  additional evidence by order dated 24.04.1987 and the prayer  had been allowed on 02.07.1985?"

       In our view, the two questions, which are framed by the High Court as substantial  questions of law, does not appear to  ........2.

- 2 - be so.  In fact, they are questions of fact.  Both the questions of fact framed by the High  Court have been elaborately dealt with by the trial Court and affirmed by the first  appellate Court.  So far, with regard to the alleged registered sale deed dated  24.11.1971 is concerned, both the trial Court and the first appellate court have dealt  with elaborately after examining the evidence on record and documents and have come  to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish the registered sale deed dated  24.11.1971 as genuine documents.

       Since we are of the view that the aforesaid two questions framed by the High Court  are not substantial questions of law but questions of fact which have been elaborately  dealt with by the trial Court and by the first appellate Court, the High Court, in second  appeal, was not justified in interfering with the findings of  fact  recorded by the two  courts.

       For the reasons afore-stated, the order of the High Court is set aside.  This appeal  is  allowed.  No costs.