#Concurrent Findings

Supreme Court reaffirms limited revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC, setting aside Punjab and Haryana High Court's interference with concurrent findings in a landlord-tenant dispute under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The ruling clarifies the threshold for eviction on bona fide grounds, impacting landlords and tenants in rent-controlled jurisdictions.

Supreme Court set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court's interference with concurrent findings in a landlord-tenant dispute, emphasizing that revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC cannot be exercised to reappraise evidence. The ruling reinforces the high threshold for overturning concurrent judicial findings in rent control matters.

The Supreme Court ruled that customary law, particularly agnatic succession among Oraon tribes, must be strictly proved under Section 48 of the Evidence Act. The judgment sets aside concurrent lower court findings, reinforcing that daughters have no inheritance rights under the custom and the nearest male agnate inherits in the absence of direct heirs. This ruling clarifies the burden of proof in tribal property disputes and limits appellate interference under Article 136.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court holds that property inherited from a non-occupancy tenant under statutory vesting ceases to be ancestral and becomes self-acquired, making it freely disposable by will. Concurrent findings of fact on the execution of a will, once affirmed by two lower courts, cannot be reappreciated in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, reinforcing finality in testamentary disputes affecting heirs and beneficiaries.

The Bombay High Court has held that labeling an unlawful sub-tenant as a trespasser does not oust the jurisdiction of rent courts under the Bombay Rent Act. This reinforces that tenancy rights, even when unauthorized, remain governed by rent control statutes - protecting sub-tenants from summary eviction and affirming the Act’s broad protective intent.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that a plaintiff’s delayed suit filing does not negate readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, reinforcing that procedural delays alone cannot defeat a claim for specific performance. The Court also rejected belated additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, emphasizing strict compliance with appellate procedural rules in property disputes.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that a partial partition suit is legally unsustainable if it omits any coparcenary property, even if settled via gift deeds. The dismissal underscores the mandatory inclusion of all joint family assets in partition claims, impacting Hindu joint family property disputes.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court reaffirmed that revisional jurisdiction cannot substitute appellate findings on evidence in cases of assault against women’s modesty, even where probation is sought. This ruling reinforces that factual credibility, once affirmed by two lower courts, stands unless demonstrably perverse - safeguarding victims from procedural delays and judicial overreach.

The Supreme Court ruled that mere infliction of grievous injury does not automatically establish intent to murder under Section 307 IPC. Conviction altered to Section 325 IPC, emphasizing that mens rea must be independently proven beyond the severity of harm caused.

Allahabad High Court rules that Section 4 of the Benami Transactions Act, 1988, operates retrospectively, barring the real owner from claiming defense in suits filed after 1988, even if the transaction predates the law. The judgment upholds concurrent findings on ownership and licensee status, reinforcing the prohibition on benami defenses in post-enactment disputes.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court reaffirmed that second appeals under Section 100 CPC cannot disturb concurrent factual findings by trial and appellate courts unless they are perverse or involve a substantial question of law. This reinforces the limited appellate scope in testamentary disputes, protecting finality in property succession cases where evidence appreciation is heavily fact-dependent.

Gauhati High Court rules that a landlord’s bona fide requirement for self-employment suffices for eviction under the Rent Control Act, even without documentary proof of business plans. The court affirms that revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC cannot re-examine concurrent findings unless they are perverse, setting a precedent for eviction disputes in Assam and neighboring states.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that concurrent findings on a will's validity, backed by attestation and unchallenged expert evidence, cannot be disturbed in a second appeal unless they are perverse or illegal. This reinforces the finality of lower court judgments in succession disputes, limiting appellate interference to exceptional cases.

The Supreme Court has ruled that concealing medical unfitness during reinstatement invalidates a public appointment, regardless of administrative oversight failures. The termination is upheld, but the employee is entitled to full service dues for actual tenure rendered, with 6% interest from the date of reinstatement - reinforcing that fraud nullifies legitimacy, not just eligibility.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that when a co-landlord dies, the surviving landlord’s bonafide necessity for the premises remains valid if actively asserted, and subletting is established not by documentary tenancy but by exclusive, unchallenged possession by a third party not named in the rent note. This clarifies evidentiary standards for eviction cases under rent control laws, impacting landlords and tenants alike in Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh.