The Supreme Court will not interfere in the exercise of its powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India with the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. But where material aspects have not been taken into consideration and where the findings of the Court are unsupportable from the evidence on record resulting in miscarriage of justice, the Court will certainly interfere
The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 136 is discretionary nature and the court rarely interferes with concurrent findings. However, the jurisdiction is wide, and in exceptional cases, interference is called for. In Collector Singh v. L.M.L. Ltd (2015) 2 SCC 410 it was held that the jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution is extraordinary and interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below is permissible only in exceptional cases and not as a matter of course. Where the appreciation of evidence is found to be wholly unsatisfactory or the conclusion drawn from the same is perverse in nature, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, the Court may interfere with the concurrent findings for doing complete justice in the case.
A similar view was taken in Nizam v. State of Rajasthan (2016) 1 SCC 550. The Court held that normally, it will not interfere in the exercise of its powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India with the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. But where material aspects have not been taken into consideration and where the findings of the Court are unsupportable from the evidence on record resulting in miscarriage of justice, the Court will certainly interfere.
These principles were followed in Pushpalata vs Vijay Kumar CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4078 OF 2022. The Court held that the High Court fell into error in ignoring that the circumstances of this case, where the first plaintiff had proved that the properties had been purchased, with his funds, and the sons were minors, with no source of income. The second defendant’s position- throughout all the proceedings, was that the properties were that of the first plaintiff; in other words, he admitted to the suit averments. The plaintiff also proved that he had possession of the property, by adducing positive evidence of tenants, who paid rent to him. In these circumstances, the elements necessary to establish benami ownership within the meaning of Section 4 (3) (a) of the Act, in terms of the have been satisfied by the first plaintiff.