Case Note & Summary
The respondent/plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.819 of 2016 for possession and arrears of rent against the defendant, who had sold the suit property to the plaintiff via a sale deed dated 26/04/2016. The defendant had earlier entered into an agreement for sale on 30/05/2011 and received the sale consideration. After the sale deed, the defendant requested to stay as a caretaker for two months, which was agreed upon by a caretaker agreement dated 31/05/2016, with monthly payment of Rs.16,000/-. The defendant failed to vacate after the expiry of the term, leading to the suit. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, which was confirmed by the first appellate court. The defendant filed a second appeal under Section 100 CPC. The High Court found that the concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence, including the admission of the defendant regarding the sale and the caretaker agreement. No substantial question of law arose. The appeal was dismissed, and the decree for possession was upheld.
Headnote
A) Transfer of Property Act - Sale - Section 54 - Valid Sale Deed - The court considered whether the sale deed dated 26/04/2016 was valid and whether the plaintiff acquired title. The defendant admitted receipt of consideration and execution of the sale deed. Held that the sale deed was valid and the plaintiff became the owner. (Paras 3-5)
B) Contract Law - Caretaker Agreement - Possession - The court examined whether the defendant's possession after the caretaker agreement was permissive or as owner. The defendant agreed to occupy as caretaker for two months on payment of Rs.16,000/- per month. Held that the defendant was a caretaker and must vacate after expiry of the term. (Paras 4-6)
C) Code of Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 - Substantial Question of Law - The court assessed whether the appeal raised any substantial question of law. The findings of fact by the lower courts were concurrent and based on evidence. Held that no substantial question of law arose, and the appeal was dismissed. (Paras 7-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC raises any substantial question of law regarding the validity of the sale deed and the nature of possession under the caretaker agreement.
Final Decision
The Second Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 23 December 2021 passed by the learned District Judge No.3, Kolhapur in Civil Appeal No.66 of 2021 is confirmed. Interim Application No.1427 of 2022 is disposed of.
Law Points
- Transfer of Property Act
- 1882
- Section 54
- Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Section 16(c)
- Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908
- Section 100
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (06) 71
Second Appeal No.195 of 2022 with Interim Application No.1427 of 2022
Smt. Anuja Prabhudessai, J.
Mr.M.M. Sathaye i/b Ms.Chitrali A. Deshmukh for the Appellants, Mr.R.P. Kasbekar for the Respondent
Sameer Dattatraya Deshpande & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil Second Appeal against concurrent findings in an eviction suit.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought to set aside the judgment and order dated 23 December 2021 passed by the District Judge No.3, Kolhapur in Civil Appeal No.66 of 2021, which confirmed the order dated 8 February 2021 in Regular Darkhast No.88 of 2017.
Filing Reason
The appellants/defendants challenged the decree for possession and arrears of rent passed against them.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Kolhapur) decreed the suit in Regular Civil Suit No.819 of 2016. The first appellate court (District Judge No.3, Kolhapur) dismissed Civil Appeal No.66 of 2021, confirming the trial court's decree.
Issues
Whether the Second Appeal raises any substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC.
Whether the sale deed dated 26/04/2016 was valid and conferred title on the plaintiff.
Whether the defendant's possession under the caretaker agreement was permissive and liable to be vacated.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the sale deed was not valid and that the defendant continued to be the owner.
Respondent argued that the sale deed was valid, consideration was paid, and the defendant was a caretaker who failed to vacate.
Ratio Decidendi
The concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts, based on admissions and evidence, that the sale deed was valid and the defendant was a caretaker, do not give rise to any substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC. The appeal is dismissed.
Judgment Excerpts
The Appellants herein have challenged the judgment and order dated 23 December 2021, passed by the learned District Judge No.3, Kolhapur in Civil Appeal No.66 of 2021.
The Defendant admitted having entered into an agreement for sale with the Plaintiff and having put him in possession of the suit property on receipt of the sale consideration.
No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed.
Procedural History
The respondent/plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.819 of 2016 for possession and arrears of rent. The trial court decreed the suit on 8 February 2021 in Regular Darkhast No.88 of 2017. The appellants/defendants appealed to the District Court, which dismissed Civil Appeal No.66 of 2021 on 23 December 2021. The appellants then filed the present Second Appeal No.195 of 2022 before the High Court, which was dismissed on 20 June 2022.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
- Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Section 54
- Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 16(c)
