Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Ramchandra Pundalik Kamat and his wife Sufala Ramchandra Kamat, filed a suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction against the respondents in the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ponda. They claimed that they were the owners and in possession of a property described in the plaint. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the petitioners failed to prove their title and possession. The first appellate court confirmed the dismissal. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court at Goa. The High Court examined the concurrent findings of fact and found that the courts below had properly appreciated the evidence. The petitioners did not produce any documentary evidence of title or possession. The High Court held that there was no perversity in the findings and that it would not interfere under Article 227. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Concurrent Findings of Fact - Interference under Article 227 - The High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The court found that the findings of the courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. (Paras 1-16) B) Property Law - Suit for Declaration of Ownership and Injunction - Burden of Proof - In a suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction, the plaintiff must prove title and possession. The petitioners failed to discharge this burden as they did not produce any documentary evidence of title or possession. (Paras 1-16) C) Evidence Act, 1872 - Burden of Proof - Section 101 - The burden of proof lies on the person who asserts a fact. The petitioners, claiming ownership and possession, failed to lead any evidence to prove their case. (Paras 1-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court should interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and first appellate court in a suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Interference by High Court under Article 227
- Suit for declaration of ownership
- Suit for permanent injunction
- Burden of proof
- Title and possession
