Case Note & Summary
The dispute pertains to a suit house consisting of seven rooms bearing Municipal House No. 2 in Swami Vivekanand Ward, Hinghanghat, District Wardha. The plaintiff, Bhaurao Narayanrao Pogale, filed a suit for permanent injunction and possession against the defendants, Prabhakar Warlji Uike and Sanjay Narayanrao Wanikar, alleging that he was a tenant of the suit house owned by Narayanrao Wanikar (father of defendant no.1) and had been paying rent of Rs. 40 per month for over 15 years. After the death of Narayanrao, the plaintiff continued to pay rent to defendant no.1. Defendant no.1 agreed to sell the suit house to defendant no.2, and thereafter the defendants attempted to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff by removing tiles of the roof and sending a notice to vacate dated 11.11.1989. The plaintiff obtained a temporary injunction on 16.3.1991. The defendants contested the suit and a Commissioner was appointed, who reported on 10.09.1991 that the plaintiff was in occupation of only two rooms while the defendants occupied five rooms. The plaintiff then filed an application on 29.10.1991 for restoration of possession, alleging forcible dispossession. The trial court decreed the suit for possession and injunction on 9.9.1996. The first appellate court dismissed the appeal on 8.9.1998. The defendants filed a second appeal before the High Court. The High Court held that the plaintiff had proved his long-standing possession and payment of rent, and the defendants failed to prove any superior title or right. The court found no substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of fact.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Possession - Permanent Injunction - Section 38, Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Suit for possession and permanent injunction based on prior possession - Plaintiff proved long-standing possession as tenant and payment of rent - Defendants failed to prove title or superior right - Held that plaintiff's prior possession is sufficient to protect against forcible dispossession (Paras 2-5). B) Evidence - Commissioner's Report - Evidentiary Value - Commissioner's report showing plaintiff in possession of only two rooms - Plaintiff's application for restoration of possession - Court considered report but relied on plaintiff's consistent evidence of possession - Held that Commissioner's report is not conclusive and must be weighed with other evidence (Paras 3-4). C) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - No substantial question of law - Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts - Held that second appeal cannot be entertained on factual disputes (Para 5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for possession and permanent injunction based on prior possession and rent receipts, despite the defendants' claim of title by purchase.
Final Decision
Second Appeal dismissed. The judgment and order of the Additional District Judge, Wardha in Regular Civil Appeal No. 120/1996 dated 8.9.1998 is confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Possession
- Permanent Injunction
- Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Section 6
- Section 38
- Rent Receipts
- Commissioner's Report
- Forcible Dispossession
