Case Note & Summary
The appellant/plaintiff filed a Regular Civil Suit No.201 of 2010 seeking a decree of perpetual injunction against the respondent/defendant, claiming possession over Plot No.27, Original Gunthewari Plot No.3 situated in City Survey No.36/2 + 3A/2B at Sangli, Miraj and Kupwad Municipal Corporation area. The plaintiff asserted that her husband purchased the suit plot from Laxman Ramchandra Jadhav via sale deed dated 26th April 1989, and that Jadhav had purchased it from Vitthal Bapu Khot via sale deed dated 15th July 1985. Apprehending obstruction to her possession, she instituted the suit. However, the plaintiff did not produce the title deeds or revenue entries to substantiate her possession. At the stage of final arguments, she moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to produce additional evidence, which was declined by the trial court. A review of that order was also rejected. The plaintiff challenged these orders in Writ Petition No.2703 of 2014, which was dismissed by the High Court on 12th March 2014. The trial court dismissed the suit on 27th March 2014 for lack of evidence of possession. The plaintiff's appeal (Regular Civil Appeal No.81 of 2014) was dismissed by the Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Sangli on 17th June 2017. The plaintiff then filed the present second appeal. The High Court noted that the plaintiff failed to produce any evidence of possession, and the defendant claimed possession on title. The court held that the findings of fact by the courts below were based on evidence and were not perverse, and no substantial question of law arose. The second appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Perpetual Injunction - Burden of Proof - Plaintiff must prove possession - In a suit for perpetual injunction, the plaintiff must establish her possession over the suit property. Mere assertion of title without producing title deeds or revenue entries is insufficient to prove possession. (Paras 1-3) B) Civil Procedure - Additional Evidence - Order 41 Rule 27 CPC - Stage of Application - An application for additional evidence at the stage of final arguments is belated and can be declined. The trial court's discretion to reject such application was upheld. (Para 2) C) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Interference - No substantial question of law - Where the findings of fact by the courts below are based on evidence and are not perverse, the High Court in second appeal under Section 100 CPC will not interfere. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a decree of perpetual injunction based on her alleged possession over the suit property, and whether the courts below erred in dismissing the suit and appeal.
Final Decision
Second Appeal No.400 of 2018 is dismissed. Civil Application No.946 of 2018 is disposed of.
Law Points
- Burden of proof
- Possession
- Title
- Perpetual injunction
- Order 41 Rule 27 CPC
- Additional evidence at appellate stage
