Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal filed by the defendant (appellant) against the concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court decreeing the suit for possession in favor of the plaintiffs (respondents). The suit property was originally owned by Rampyaribai, who executed a power of attorney in favor of Subhash and Ajay. The plaintiffs purchased the property from these attorneys under a sale deed and claimed they were put in possession but the defendants clandestinely entered into possession. The defendants admitted that Rampyaribai was the owner and that they were in possession of two shops on the ground floor and one room on the upper floor. They contended that the power of attorney holders had agreed to sell the property to them and they were put in possession in part performance of the agreement. They also claimed that Rampyaribai had assured them she would sell the property to them. The trial court decreed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs had proved their title and that the defendants failed to prove any agreement or part performance. The first appellate court confirmed this. In the second appeal, the appellant argued that the courts below erred in not considering the defendants' possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose as the concurrent findings were based on evidence and not perverse. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court considered whether the second appeal raised any substantial question of law. Held that concurrent findings of fact by courts below cannot be interfered with unless perverse or based on no evidence. The appellant failed to demonstrate any such error. (Paras 1-7) B) Property Law - Title Suit - Possession Based on Title - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - The plaintiffs sought possession based on title derived from a sale deed executed by power of attorney holders of the original owner. The defendants claimed possession under an agreement of sale and part performance. The courts below decreed the suit in favor of plaintiffs. Held that the defendants' claim under Section 53A was not established as they failed to prove a valid agreement and readiness to perform. (Paras 3-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeal involves any substantial question of law warranting interference with concurrent findings of fact regarding title and possession of the suit property.
Final Decision
The second appeal is dismissed. The concurrent findings and decrees of the courts below are upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- title suit
- possession based on title
- power of attorney
- part performance
- Section 53A Transfer of Property Act
