R.P.SETHI, J. - (1.) THE pleas raised in this appeal are concluded by concurrent findings of fact. The findings of fact arrived at by the Trial Court as also the first Appellate Court are alleged to be not based upon proper appreciation of evidence, or being based upon the error of law or substantial error of procedure. After going through the whole record, we have come to the conclusion that the judgment is not based on unsatisfactory or insufficient evidence and the mere possibility, of the second Appellate Court coming to a different view does not justify the disturbance of the findings of fact in this appeal.
(2.) IN Paras Nath v. Mohani Dasi, AIR 1959 SC 1204 it was held that the High Court, on second appeal, cannot go into the question of fact, however, erroneous the findings of fact recorded by the Courts of fact may be. It was held : "it is manifest that the question to be determined by the High Court on the second appeal was essentially one of fact. That the High Court was cognizant of this aspect of the case appears from the following observation with which the decision of the Court begins: "in second appeal the substantial point urged before us is whether the evidence, both oral and documentary, would warrant an inference that the properties had infact been dedicated to the deity. " " It is well-settled by a long series of decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and of this Court, that a High Court, on Second Appeal, cannot go into questions of fact, however, erroneous the findings of fact recorded by the Courts of fact may be. It is not necessary to cite those decisions. Indeed, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondents did not and could not contend that the High Court was competent to go behind the findings of fact concurrently recorded by the two Courts of fact. The High Court then set out to examine the evidence, both oral and documentary, and after an elaborate examination of the large volume of evidence adduced by the parties, recorded the finding that: "defendant No. 1 has failed to prove his title and that the plaintiffs are entitled to have the suit properties sold with a view to satisfy the decree obtained by them against the judgment-debtors. In our opinion, the High Court has completely misdirected itself both in law and on facts, as will presently appear, even assuming that it was open to it to go behind finding of facts. " It is also settled proposition of law that where from a given set of circumstances two inferences are possible, the one drawn by the lower Appellate Court is binding on the second Appellate Court in second appeal. In the instant case, the appellant-husband sought divorce on the grounds of desertion and cruelty which were made subject-matter of issue Nos. 1 to 3. Both the Courts returned the findings against the appellant. No ground is made out for interference in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed with costs throughout.
(3.) IT may not be out of place to mention that serious efforts were made by the Court for reconciliation between the parties and at one stage the appellant- husband agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 80,000/- to the respondent for getting mutual divorce in terms of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the 'act') but on the adjourned date he withdrew from the offer and expressed his inability to make the payment of the aforesaid amount. It is, therefore, proved that the husband himself is responsible for the withdrawal of the society from the respondent and cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong under Section 23 of the Act.;