Case Note & Summary
The case involves a property dispute between the petitioners (legal representatives of Tryambak Namdev Mali) and the respondents (legal heirs of Bhatu Sonar). The petitioners claimed title to certain agricultural lands based on a Will allegedly executed by Bhatu Sonar in their favor. The respondents denied the Will and claimed that the properties were ancestral joint family properties. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the Will was not proved as the attesting witnesses were not examined and the signature of the testator was not established. The first appellate court confirmed the findings. The petitioners then filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the concurrent findings. The High Court examined the scope of interference under Article 227 and held that it cannot reappreciate evidence unless there is perversity or jurisdictional error. The court noted that the courts below had properly appreciated the evidence and recorded concurrent findings of fact. The petitioners failed to point out any perversity or error of law. The court also observed that the Will was not proved in accordance with Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the concurrent findings were upheld.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Concurrent Findings of Fact - Article 227 of Constitution of India - Scope of Interference - The High Court in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot reappreciate evidence and substitute its own findings when the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact based on evidence. The court held that the petitioners failed to point out any perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference (Paras 8-10). B) Evidence Act - Will - Proof of Will - Section 68 of Evidence Act, 1872 - The Will in question was not proved as the attesting witnesses were not examined and the signature of the testator was not established. The court held that the concurrent findings of the courts below that the Will was not proved are based on proper appreciation of evidence (Paras 5-7). C) Civil Procedure - Regular Civil Suit - Title and Possession - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The suit for declaration of title and possession was dismissed as the plaintiffs failed to prove their title. The court held that the findings of fact recorded by the trial court and first appellate court are concurrent and not perverse (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below regarding the validity of the Will and the title of the property can be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The concurrent findings of the courts below are upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Article 227 of Constitution of India
- Will proof
- Civil Procedure Code
- 1908
- Order 41 Rule 31
- Evidence Act
- 1872
- Section 68
