Case Note & Summary
The case involves four second appeals arising from a partition suit filed by the original plaintiff, Satchidanand S. S. Kacodkar (since deceased, represented by legal representatives), against his brother Meghasham Ramakrishna Sinai Cacodkar (since deceased, represented by legal representatives) and others. The suit sought partition and separate possession of the suit property, which was claimed to be joint family property. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the property was joint family property and that the plaintiff was entitled to a 1/2 share. The first appellate court confirmed the decree. The defendants filed second appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court of Bombay at Goa dismissed the appeals, holding that no substantial question of law arose. The court noted that the findings of fact by the courts below were concurrent and based on evidence, and there was no perversity. The court also rejected the defendants' claim of adverse possession and limitation. The judgment was delivered by a single judge on 30 December 2020.
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 only interfere if there is a substantial question of law. Concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and first appellate court cannot be re-appreciated unless perverse or based on no evidence. (Paras 1-10) B) Hindu Law - Partition - Joint Family Property - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff must prove that the property is joint family property and that he is entitled to a share. In this case, the courts below found that the suit property was ancestral and joint, and the plaintiff had proved his share. (Paras 11-20) C) Limitation - Adverse Possession - Claim of Title by Adverse Possession - The defendant's claim of adverse possession was rejected as the plaintiff's possession was not ousted and the suit was filed within limitation. (Paras 21-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, raise any substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings of the courts below regarding the partition of joint family property.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed all four second appeals, confirming the decrees of the trial court and first appellate court. No substantial question of law was found to exist.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- partition suit
- joint family property
- limitation
- adverse possession
