Case Note & Summary
The present second appeal was filed by the original defendants against the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2022 passed by the District Judge-1, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No.392 of 2019, which affirmed the judgment and decree of the 23rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur in Regular Civil Suit No.2571 of 2012. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for possession of suit property, being a portion of a house property situated at Ambedkar Nagar, Nagpur. The plaintiffs resided on the first and second floors, while the defendants occupied the ground floor consisting of a varandha, hall, store room, kitchen, and bedroom admeasuring 41.66 sq mtrs. The relationship between the parties was that of licensor and licensee, with the defendants being permitted to occupy the suit property by the original owner, who was the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs. After the death of the original owner, the plaintiffs became the owners. The defendants continued to occupy the suit property but failed to vacate despite demands. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the defendants were licensees and had no independent title. The first appellate court confirmed this finding. In the second appeal, the defendants contended that the courts below erred in not considering that the license had not been revoked and that the suit was not maintainable. The High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and were not perverse. The suit for possession based on title was maintainable, and the license stood terminated upon the death of the original licensee. The defendants failed to prove any independent title or adverse possession. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed, and the decree for possession was upheld.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The High Court held that in a second appeal, interference with concurrent findings of fact is permissible only if the findings are perverse, i.e., based on no evidence or misreading of evidence, or if the court has acted without jurisdiction. The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose. (Paras 1-15) B) Property Law - Possession Suit - Licensee - Burden of Proof - Section 116 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The defendants, who were licensees, failed to prove independent title or that they were in adverse possession. The plaintiffs, as owners, were entitled to possession. The suit for possession based on title was maintainable without prior revocation of license, as the license stood terminated upon the death of the original licensee. (Paras 3-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, raises any substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below.
Final Decision
The second appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 16.04.2022 passed by the District Judge-1, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No.392 of 2019, confirming the judgment and decree of the 23rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur in Regular Civil Suit No.2571 of 2012, is upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second appeal
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- interference limited to perversity
- licensee
- possession based on title
- revocation of license
- Section 100 CPC
- Section 116 Evidence Act
