Case Note & Summary
The appellant (original plaintiff) filed a second appeal against the judgment and order dated 22.4.1998 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Wardha, in Regular Civil Appeal No.129/1995, which confirmed the trial court's dismissal of Regular Civil Suit No.143/1993, except setting aside the award of compensatory costs to the defendant. The plaintiff had instituted the suit for possession based on title to Plot No.27 admeasuring 40' x 20' situated at Takli, Taluka & District Wardha. He claimed that the suit plot was owned by his father and bequeathed to him under a Will dated 26.3.1981. The defendant, who was not concerned with the plot, started storing firewood and on 5.5.1993 dug a pit to construct a shed. The plaintiff complained to the Gram Panchayat, which issued a notice to the defendant on 27.2.1993 to remove the tinshed. An ex parte injunction was granted on 7.5.1993, but the defendant allegedly forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff of a portion of the suit plot. The defendant resisted the suit, denying the plaintiff's title and claiming ownership of the plot since his forefathers, alleging that the plaintiff in connivance with the Sarpanch was trying to grab his property. The trial court disbelieved the plaintiff's case and found that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he acquired title to the suit property under the Will. The first appellate court confirmed this finding. The High Court, in the second appeal, held that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from any perversity or error of law. No substantial question of law arose for consideration, and the 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 High Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and first appellate court in a suit for possession based on title. The plaintiff failed to prove his title under a Will, and the defendant's claim of adverse possession was accepted. Held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the second appeal (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeal involves any substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below.
Final Decision
Second appeal dismissed with no order as to costs. Concurrent findings of fact not interfered with.
Law Points
- Second appeal
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- interference limited
- title by Will
- adverse possession
- Section 100 CPC
