Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Ganpat Sakharam Gangurde and others, filed a second appeal before the Bombay High Court challenging the judgment and order dated 16 July 1994 passed by the Joint District Judge, Nashik in Regular Civil Appeal No. 364 of 1988. The lower appellate court had upheld the judgment and decree dated 15 September 1987 of the Civil Judge Junior Division, Chandwad in Regular Civil Suit No. 119 of 1982, which decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, Sahadu Fakira Shejwal, granting a perpetual injunction against the appellants regarding Survey No. 29/3 to the extent of 2 acres and 4 gunthas. The dispute arose from a sale deed dated 4 March 1970, where the appellants purchased land Gat no. 205 from the respondent's predecessors. An amended sale deed was executed on 20 March 1970, correcting the area from 4 acres 8 gunthas to 2 acres 4 gunthas. The respondent filed a suit seeking permanent injunction, alleging that the appellants destroyed the common boundary on 5 August 1982. The respondent also filed an application (Exhibit-24) to compel the appellants to produce the original sale deeds, which were in their custody. The appellants produced photocopies. The trial court and first appellate court both found that the correction deed (Exhibit-42) and sale deed (Exhibit-43) were admissible and supported the respondent's claim. The appellants' written statement did not raise any specific claim. The High Court noted that the grounds raised in the second appeal were purely factual and did not involve any substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court held that the grounds raised by the appellants were purely factual and did not involve any substantial question of law, hence the second appeal was not maintainable. (Paras 3, 8) B) Property Law - Boundary Dispute - Correction Deed - Admissibility - The courts below concurrently held that the correction deed (Exhibit-42) and sale deed (Exhibit-43) were admissible as produced by the defendants, and the plaintiff was entitled to permanent injunction based on the evidence. (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeal raises any substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
Second appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second appeal only on substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact not interfered with
- Section 100 CPC
