Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal filed by Mahesh Shivlal Shahu (appellant) against the judgment and order dated 11.9.2009 passed by the District Judge 6th, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No.151/2007, which confirmed the judgment and decree dated 09.01.2007 passed by the 6th Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur in Special Civil Suit No.557/2004. The trial court had passed a decree for eviction and damages in favor of the respondents, Smt. Bhagyashree w/o Jayantrao Buty and Yashodhan s/o Jayantrao Buty, against the appellant. The appellant contended that the respondents failed to prove their ownership over the suit shop block No.11, and that the unregistered agreement (Exh.29) relied upon by the courts below was not admissible under Section 17 read with Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. The appellant also argued that he was a tenant and the suit was not maintainable in the absence of proceedings under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The respondents opposed the appeal, arguing that no substantial question of law was involved and that the findings of fact were based on evidence. The High Court held that the unregistered memorandum of oral partition (Exh.29) was admissible for collateral purpose of proving title and nature of possession, and that the appellant failed to raise any substantial question of law. The court found no perversity in the concurrent findings of the courts below and dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - The appellant failed to raise any substantial question of law; the findings of fact recorded by the courts below were based on evidence and not perverse. Held that second appeal cannot be entertained on mere re-appreciation of evidence (Paras 1-7). B) Registration Act - Admissibility of Unregistered Document - Sections 17 and 49 - An unregistered memorandum of oral partition (Exh.29) is admissible for collateral purpose of proving title and nature of possession, even if not registered. Held that the document was rightly considered by the courts below (Paras 6-7). C) Evidence Act - Burden of Proof - Ownership - The plaintiffs-respondents successfully discharged the burden of proving ownership through oral and documentary evidence, including the unregistered memorandum. Held that the appellant's contention of failure to prove ownership was without merit (Paras 3-7). D) Rent Control - Eviction Suit - Maintainability - Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - The appellant claimed tenancy but failed to prove the same; the suit for eviction was maintainable as the relationship of landlord and tenant was not established. Held that the courts below correctly decreed eviction (Paras 3-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the unregistered agreement (Exh.29) was admissible in evidence to prove ownership of the suit property, and whether the courts below erred in passing a decree for eviction and damages.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal with no order as to costs, confirming the judgment and decree for eviction and damages passed by the courts below.
Law Points
- Admissibility of unregistered document for collateral purpose
- Section 17 and Section 49 of Registration Act
- 1908
- Burden of proof of ownership
- Maintainability of eviction suit under Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999
- Scope of second appeal under Section 100 CPC
