Case Note & Summary
The case involves a property dispute over house property bearing City Survey No. 1046-C/13/3 admeasuring 33.6 sq.mtrs and two rooms on the first floor at Kolhapur. The plaintiff, Prakash Dattatraya Diwase (since deceased, represented by his heirs), filed Regular Civil Suit No. 912 of 2014 for recovery of possession against the defendants, Dagadu Dnyanu Diwase and others. The plaintiff claimed that his father, Dattatraya, purchased the suit property from Annaso Gangadhar Athane by a registered sale deed dated 3 June 1968 for Rs. 2,000, and a correction deed was executed on 6 May 1970. The plaintiff asserted that the property was his father's self-acquired property and that the family resided there. The defendants contested the suit, denying the plaintiff's title and claiming adverse possession. The trial court (8th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Kolhapur) dismissed the suit on 8 July 2016, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove ownership. The plaintiff appealed to the District Court, Kolhapur, which allowed Regular Civil Appeal No. 230 of 2016 on 19 May 2023, reversing the trial court's decree and decreeing the suit for possession with directions for enquiry into mesne profits under Order 21 Rule 12(1C) CPC. The defendants (appellants) filed the present second appeal under Section 100 CPC. The High Court of Bombay, presided by Justice Sandeep V. Marne, heard the appeal and allowed it, setting aside the first Appellate Court's judgment and restoring the trial court's decree. The Court found that the first Appellate Court failed to frame substantial questions of law as required under Section 100 CPC and erroneously reversed the trial court's findings without proper appreciation of evidence. The Court held that the plaintiff did not establish his title to the suit property, and the trial court's dismissal of the suit was correct. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The High Court held that the first Appellate Court failed to frame substantial questions of law as required under Section 100 CPC, and its judgment reversing the trial court's decree was not sustainable. The appeal was allowed and the trial court's decree dismissing the suit was restored. (Paras 1-27) B) Property Law - Ownership and Possession - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff failed to prove ownership of the suit property through valid title documents. The trial court correctly dismissed the suit for possession as the plaintiff did not establish his title. The first Appellate Court erred in reversing that finding without proper appreciation of evidence. (Paras 2-20) C) Mesne Profits - Enquiry under Order 21 Rule 12(1C) CPC - The first Appellate Court's direction for enquiry into mesne profits was set aside as the suit itself was dismissed. (Para 27)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the first Appellate Court was justified in reversing the trial court's judgment without framing substantial questions of law and whether the suit for possession was maintainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court dated 19 May 2023, and restored the trial court's judgment and decree dated 8 July 2016 dismissing the suit. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second Appeal
- Substantial Question of Law
- Section 100 CPC
- Ownership
- Possession
- Mesne Profits
- Order 21 Rule 12(1C) CPC
