Bombay High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Property Dispute — Concurrent Findings of Fact Upheld. Suit for declaration of ownership and injunction dismissed as plaintiffs failed to prove title and possession; no substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Prosecution
  • 4
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves a second appeal filed by the original defendants (appellants) against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court which had dismissed their appeal and confirmed the trial court's decree dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction. The plaintiffs had claimed ownership and possession of the suit property, but the trial court found that they failed to prove their title and possession. The first appellate court concurred with these findings. In the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court examined whether any substantial question of law arose. The High Court noted that the findings of fact were concurrent and based on proper appreciation of evidence. The court held that no substantial question of law was involved and dismissed the second appeal, confirming the dismissal of the suit. The court also disposed of the civil application.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The High Court held that the second appeal does not involve any substantial question of law as the findings of fact recorded by the trial court and first appellate court were concurrent and based on appreciation of evidence. The court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings. (Paras 1-3)

B) Property Law - Suit for Declaration and Injunction - Burden of Proof - The plaintiffs failed to prove their title and possession over the suit property. The courts below concurrently held that the plaintiffs were not in possession and that the defendants were the owners. The High Court affirmed these findings. (Paras 1-3)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, raises any substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the second appeal, confirming the concurrent findings of the courts below. The civil application also stands disposed of.

Law Points

  • Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
  • concurrent findings of fact
  • no substantial question of law
  • burden of proof
  • title and possession
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2012 LawText (BOM) (02) 5

Second Appeal No. 741 of 2011 with Civil Application No. 8024 of 2011

0000-00-00

Mr. S.B. Talekar, Advocate for the appellants

Gaffar s/o. Sattarkhan Pathan and others

Marutrao s/o. Tatyaba Sarpate and another

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Second appeal against concurrent findings in a suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction.

Remedy Sought

The appellants (original defendants) sought to set aside the concurrent judgments of the trial court and first appellate court which dismissed the plaintiffs' suit.

Filing Reason

The appellants challenged the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below in the suit for declaration and injunction.

Previous Decisions

The trial court dismissed the suit; the first appellate court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the trial court's decree.

Issues

Whether the second appeal involves any substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellants argued that the findings of the courts below were perverse and not based on evidence. The respondents supported the concurrent findings.

Ratio Decidendi

In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. No substantial question of law arose in this case.

Judgment Excerpts

The second appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. The findings of fact recorded by the courts below are concurrent and based on appreciation of evidence.

Procedural History

The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction. The trial court dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs appealed to the first appellate court, which dismissed the appeal. The defendants then filed the present second appeal before the High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds OBC Reservation in All-India Quota Medical Seats — Constitutionality of Reservation for Backward Classes in State-Surrendered Seats Affirmed. Court holds that reservation in AIQ seats is permissible and does not violate the pr...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Property Dispute — Concurrent Findings of Fact Upheld. Suit for declaration of ownership and injunction dismissed as plaintiffs failed to prove title and possession; no substantial question of law under ...