Case Note & Summary
The case involves a property dispute between siblings. The plaintiff-appellants (legal representatives of the original plaintiff Damaji Sakharam Chivande) claimed ownership of a house property based on a registered sale deed dated 28.12.1955 executed by one Rukhamabai in their favor. They alleged that the defendant-respondents (Mainabai and others) were permitted to reside in the house temporarily in 1974 but failed to vacate after 5-6 years, leading to a suit for possession. The defendants denied the plaintiffs' title, asserting that they had been caring for Rukhamabai and were allowed to reside there, and that the property was recorded in the name of the defendant's husband. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title because the original sale deed was not produced. The first appellate court (Additional District Judge) affirmed this finding. In the second appeal, the High Court admitted the appeal on the question of whether the courts below were justified in dismissing the suit. The High Court noted that the concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and that the non-production of the original sale deed was fatal to the plaintiffs' claim. The court held that no substantial question of law arose and dismissed the appeal, confirming the dismissal of the suit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - The court considered whether the concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and first appellate court that the plaintiff failed to prove title due to non-production of the original sale deed warranted interference in second appeal. Held that the findings were based on appreciation of evidence and did not give rise to any substantial question of law (Paras 6-7).
B) Evidence Act - Proof of Title - Best Evidence - Sections 61, 62, 64 - The plaintiff claimed title through a registered sale deed dated 28.12.1955 but failed to produce the original document. The courts below held that title was not proved. Held that non-production of the original deed is fatal to the claim of title, and the concurrent findings cannot be disturbed in second appeal (Paras 4-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the courts below were justified in dismissing the suit for possession on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove title by not producing the original sale deed.
Final Decision
The Second Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree of the courts below are confirmed.
Law Points
- Burden of proof
- Title to property
- Production of original document
- Best evidence rule
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Substantial question of law
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (04) 131
Second Appeal No. 122 of 1997
Shri M. N. Ingley for the appellants, Shri Anil Mardikar for the respondents
Damaji Sakharam Chivande (Since deceased by L.Rs.) - 1] Jayawantabi wd/o Damaji Chivande, 2] Nilubai wd/o Gajanan Chivande, 3] Indirabai wd/o Santosh Awale, 4] Darshan Gajanan Chivande, 5] Manoj Gajanan Chivande
Mainabai wd/o Sakharam Awale, Santosh Sakharam Awale, Vijay Sakharam Awale, Ranjana d/o Sakharam Awale
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for possession of house property based on title.
Remedy Sought
Plaintiffs sought possession of the suit house from the defendants.
Filing Reason
Defendants failed to vacate the suit house after being permitted to reside temporarily.
Previous Decisions
Trial court dismissed the suit; first appellate court dismissed the appeal.
Issues
Whether the courts below were justified in dismissing the suit on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove title by not producing the original sale deed.
Submissions/Arguments
Plaintiffs argued that they purchased the suit house from Rukhamabai by registered sale deed dated 28.12.1955 and permitted defendants to reside temporarily.
Defendants denied plaintiffs' title, claiming they cared for Rukhamabai and were allowed to reside, and that the property was recorded in defendant's husband's name.
Ratio Decidendi
In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. Here, the courts below found that the plaintiff failed to prove title due to non-production of the original sale deed, which is a finding of fact based on evidence. No substantial question of law arises.
Judgment Excerpts
This Second Appeal is preferred by the plaintiff who was unsuccessful in both the Courts below.
The subject matter of the suit is house property.
Learned Judge of the trial Court recorded the evidence. He found that the plaintiff had failed to prove their title inasmuch as the original sale deed was not produced by the plaintiffs on record.
Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: ...
In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed.
Procedural History
The original plaintiff filed a suit for possession in the trial court, which was dismissed. The plaintiff appealed to the District Court, where the Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff then filed a Second Appeal in the High Court, which was admitted on substantial questions of law and ultimately dismissed.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Sections 61, 62, 64
