Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a suit for permanent injunction filed by the respondents (original plaintiffs) against the appellants (original defendants) in respect of an agricultural property known as "COLEAN SARVO" or "COLEACHO SODO" situated at Bethora, Ponda-Goa. The plaintiffs claimed to be the owners and in possession of the suit property based on a registered Deed of Sale dated 22.09.1975. The defendants contested the suit, claiming that the property belonged to their ancestors and that they were in possession. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that they had proved their title and possession. The first appellate court confirmed the decree. The defendants filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court framed a substantial question of law regarding whether the concurrent findings were perverse. After hearing the parties, the court held that the findings of the courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from any perversity. The defendants failed to produce any documentary evidence to support their claim of title or possession. The court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the decree of permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiffs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - The court reiterated that in a second appeal, the High Court can interfere only if there is a substantial question of law. Concurrent findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence cannot be disturbed unless perverse. (Paras 1-21) B) Property Law - Title and Possession - Permanent Injunction - The plaintiffs claimed ownership and possession based on a registered sale deed dated 22.09.1975. The trial court and first appellate court concurrently found that the plaintiffs proved their title and possession, and the defendants failed to establish any right. (Paras 3-10) C) Evidence - Burden of Proof - The defendants, who claimed title through inheritance, failed to produce any documentary evidence to support their claim. The courts below correctly held that the burden was on the defendants to prove their title, which they failed to discharge. (Paras 11-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below on the issues of title and possession are perverse or suffer from any substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the decree of permanent injunction granted by the trial court and confirmed by the first appellate court.
Law Points
- Second appeal
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings
- perversity
- title
- possession
- permanent injunction
- burden of proof
- appreciation of evidence
