Case Note & Summary
The case involves a property dispute over a piece of land known as 'Piturlem' situated at Sancoale, Goa, admeasuring 1318 square metres and surveyed under No. 276/2. The respondents (Suresh Basu Naik and others) filed a suit alleging that the suit property was purchased by their father on 24.12.1968. They claimed that appellant nos.2, 4 and 6 misguided appellant no.1 and her husband, and without the knowledge and consent of the respondents, induced the parents of respondent no.1 to execute a deed of sale dated 21.12.1993 in favour of appellant nos.2, 4 and 6. The sale deed was registered before the Sub-Registrar of Mormugao. The respondents sought a declaration that the sale deed was null and void. The trial court dismissed the suit, but on appeal, the learned District & Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 389/2010, allowed the appeal and declared the sale deed null, void and ineffective. The appellants (Premavati Basu Naik and others) filed a second appeal before the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The High Court, after hearing the counsel for the appellants, found that the lower appellate court had considered the evidence and recorded findings that the sale deed was executed without the knowledge and consent of the respondents. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, as the findings of fact were not perverse. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed, confirming the decree of the lower appellate court.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Sale Deed - Validity - Lack of Consent - The respondents filed a suit challenging a deed of sale dated 21.12.1993 executed by the parents of respondent no.1 in favour of appellant nos.2, 4 and 6, alleging that the sale was without their knowledge and consent. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the lower appellate court reversed the decree and declared the sale deed null and void. The High Court dismissed the second appeal, holding that the findings of fact by the lower appellate court were based on evidence and not perverse, and no substantial question of law arose. (Paras 1-6) B) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Scope - Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a second appeal lies only on a substantial question of law. The High Court found that the appellants failed to demonstrate any perversity or error of law in the lower appellate court's judgment, and therefore dismissed the appeal. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the deed of sale dated 21.12.1993 was validly executed with the knowledge and consent of the respondents, and whether the second appeal raises any substantial question of law.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court which declared the deed of sale dated 21.12.1993 as null, void and ineffective.
Law Points
- Sale deed void for lack of consent
- Co-owner's consent necessary for transfer
- Second appeal limited to substantial questions of law
- Concurrent findings of fact not interfered with unless perverse
