Case Note & Summary
The present second appeal arises from a partition suit filed by the original plaintiffs (appellants) against the defendants (respondents). The plaintiffs, being the wife and sons of defendant No.2 Shrawan, sought partition of agricultural lands and movable properties left by Chindhuji, who died in 1963. A partition between Shrawan and his uncle Laxman took place in 1966, giving Shrawan 23.50 acres. In 1975, Shrawan executed an Isarpatra (agreement to sell) in favor of defendant No.1 Shankar Tarale, who later filed a specific performance suit. The trial court decreed the partition suit in 2003, holding that the suit properties were joint family properties and that the plaintiffs were entitled to shares. The first appellate court reversed the decree, dismissing the suit. The High Court framed substantial questions of law regarding the appellate court's compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC and the correctness of its findings. The High Court found that the first appellate court failed to frame points for determination, did not independently assess evidence, and merely reproduced the trial court's judgment. The appellate court also erred in holding that the properties were self-acquired of Shrawan without proper reasoning. The High Court set aside the appellate judgment and remanded the matter for fresh disposal in accordance with law, directing the appellate court to frame points for determination and decide the appeal afresh.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Order 41 Rule 31 - Appellate Judgment - Points for Determination - The first appellate court must frame points for determination and give independent reasoning on each point; failure to do so renders the judgment illegal and liable to be set aside. (Paras 10-12)
B) Hindu Law - Partition - Coparcenary Property - Self-Acquired Property - The burden of proof lies on the party alleging that property is joint family property; mere existence of joint family does not make every acquisition joint. (Paras 14-15)
C) Civil Procedure Code - Section 100 - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Non-compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 and perverse findings constitute substantial questions of law. (Para 13)
D) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 8 - Succession - Property inherited by a male Hindu from his father after 1956 is his self-acquired property, not coparcenary property. (Para 16)
E) Evidence Act, 1872 - Burden of Proof - Adverse Possession - The party claiming adverse possession must prove hostile possession to the knowledge of the true owner. (Para 18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the first appellate court's judgment is sustainable when it failed to frame points for determination and provide independent reasoning as required under Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the findings on partition and nature of property are perverse.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate court, and remanded the matter to the first appellate court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, with a direction to frame points for determination and decide the appeal afresh. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order 41 Rule 31 CPC
- Section 100 CPC
- Partition
- Hindu Succession Act
- 1956
- Coparcenary Property
- Self-Acquired Property
- Burden of Proof
- Adverse Possession
- Estoppel
- Waiver
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (10) 241
Second Appeal No.607/2005
Shri N.B. Kalwaghe, Advocate assisted with Shri Vaibhav Patre, Advocate for appellants; Shri S.V. Manohar, Senior Advocate, assisted with Shri Abhay Sambre, Advocate and Shri Y.N. Sambre, Advocate for respondent No.1; Shri M.A. Vishnu, Advocate h/f Shri Shrikant Dev, Advocate for respondent No.3/Cross-objector
Arun Shrawan Bhajbhuje and others
Shankar Pusaram Tarale and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeal against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court in a partition suit.
Remedy Sought
The appellants (original plaintiffs) sought to set aside the appellate judgment and restore the trial court's decree granting partition.
Filing Reason
The first appellate court reversed the trial court's decree without framing points for determination and without independent reasoning.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hinganghat) decreed the suit on 26/09/2003. The first appellate court (3rd Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Wardha) allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.
Issues
Whether the first appellate court complied with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC by framing points for determination and giving independent reasoning?
Whether the findings of the first appellate court regarding the nature of the suit properties (self-acquired vs. joint family) are perverse?
Whether the suit is barred by limitation, adverse possession, or estoppel?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the first appellate court failed to frame points for determination and merely reproduced the trial court's judgment, violating Order 41 Rule 31 CPC.
Appellants contended that the properties were joint family properties and the appellate court erred in holding them as self-acquired.
Respondents argued that the appellate court's judgment was proper and the properties were self-acquired of Shrawan, and the suit was barred by limitation and adverse possession.
Ratio Decidendi
The first appellate court must comply with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC by framing points for determination and providing independent reasoning on each point. Failure to do so renders the appellate judgment illegal and liable to be set aside. The appellate court cannot merely reproduce the trial court's judgment without independent assessment of evidence.
Judgment Excerpts
The first appellate Court has not framed the points for determination as required under Order 41 Rule 31 of C.P.C. The judgment of the first appellate Court is nothing but reproduction of the judgment of the trial Court.
The first appellate Court being the final Court of facts, it was duty bound to frame points for determination and to give its own findings on each point.
The judgment of the first appellate Court is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside.
Procedural History
The original plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No.162/1984 for partition. The trial court decreed the suit on 26/09/2003. The defendants appealed in Regular Civil Appeal No.147/2003, which was allowed by the 3rd Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Wardha, dismissing the suit. The plaintiffs then filed the present second appeal in the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 41 Rule 31, Section 100
- Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Section 8
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
