Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Parmeshwar s/o Dhondiba Umbre, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Beed, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2008, which confirmed the decree of dismissal of Regular Civil Suit No. 45 of 2006 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Majalgaon. The petitioner had filed the suit for permanent injunction against the respondents, claiming that he was the owner and in possession of the suit property, and that the respondents were interfering with his possession. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the petitioner failed to prove his title and possession. The first appellate court confirmed the findings. The High Court, in writ jurisdiction, examined whether the concurrent findings of fact were perverse or suffered from any error of law. The court noted that the petitioner had not produced sufficient evidence to prove his exclusive possession and title. The courts below had appreciated the evidence and recorded findings that the petitioner was not in exclusive possession and that the respondents were also in possession of part of the property. The High Court held that the findings were based on evidence and were not perverse. The court further held that under Article 227, the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence and substitute its own findings unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Concurrent Findings of Fact - Interference under Article 227 - The High Court in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse, based on no evidence, or suffer from a patent error of law or jurisdiction. The court held that the findings of the trial court and first appellate court were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. (Paras 1-10) B) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Permanent Injunction - Possession and Title - In a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff must prove his possession and title over the suit property. The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove his exclusive possession and title, and the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below were correct. (Paras 5-9) C) Evidence Act, 1872 - Burden of Proof - Onus on Plaintiff - The burden of proof in a suit for injunction lies on the plaintiff to establish his case. The court held that the plaintiff did not discharge the burden and the findings of fact by the courts below were based on evidence. (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and first appellate court in a suit for permanent injunction based on possession and title.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition with no order as to costs, upholding the concurrent findings of the courts below.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Interference under Article 227
- Perversity
- Re-appreciation of evidence
- Suit for permanent injunction
- Possession
- Title
