Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal filed by the original defendants (appellants) against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Satara, which confirmed the trial court's decree in favor of the plaintiffs (respondents). The plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction in respect of certain agricultural land. The trial court decreed the suit, and the first appellate court dismissed the appeal. In the second appeal, the High Court examined whether any substantial question of law arose. The court noted that the findings of fact recorded by both courts below were concurrent and based on evidence. The appellants argued that the findings were perverse, but the High Court found no perversity. The court held that the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not permit re-appreciation of evidence unless the findings are shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. Since the appellants failed to demonstrate any substantial question of law, the second appeal was dismissed. The court also disposed of the civil applications.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court considered whether the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and first appellate court were perverse or based on no evidence. Held that the findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence and no substantial question of law arose. (Paras 1-3)
B) Property Law - Suit for Declaration and Injunction - Burden of Proof - The appellants claimed ownership of suit property but failed to prove title. The courts below concurrently held that the respondents were in possession and had better title. Held that the findings of fact cannot be interfered with in second appeal. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 involves any substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below.
Final Decision
Second Appeal dismissed. Civil Application Nos. 430 of 2010 and 431 of 2010 disposed of. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- perversity
- appreciation of evidence
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (10) 71
SECOND APPEAL NO. 154 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 430 OF 2010 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 431 OF 2010
Mr. Dilip Bodake for Appellants, Mr. V.B. Ghorpade for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. Uday Warunjikar for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4
Shri Nathu Ananda Ghorpade and others
Smt. Yashoda Jagannath Ghorpade and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeal against concurrent findings in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding agricultural land.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought to set aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate court which confirmed the trial court's decree in favor of the respondents.
Filing Reason
Appellants challenged the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below, alleging perversity and that the findings were not based on evidence.
Previous Decisions
Trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondents; first appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants.
Issues
Whether the second appeal involves any substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC?
Whether the concurrent findings of fact are perverse or based on no evidence?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the findings of the courts below were perverse and not based on evidence.
Respondents supported the concurrent findings and submitted that no substantial question of law arises.
Ratio Decidendi
In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. The court must formulate a substantial question of law before hearing the appeal.
Judgment Excerpts
In the peculiar facts of this case, which will be narrated hereinafter, I am of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises in this Second Appeal.
The findings recorded by both the Courts below are concurrent findings of fact and are based on proper appreciation of evidence.
Procedural History
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in the trial court, which was decreed. The defendants appealed to the District Judge, Satara, who dismissed the appeal. The defendants then filed the present second appeal in the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
