Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Divakar Savleram Torne, Dinkar Savleram Torne, and Pramod Dinkar Torne, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge-2, Shrirampur, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 82 of 2008, which confirmed the decree passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shrirampur, in Regular Civil Suit No. 42 of 2001. The suit was filed by the respondents (original plaintiffs) against the petitioners (original defendants) for partition and separate possession of the suit property. The trial court decreed the suit, directing partition of the property into two equal shares and allotting one share to the plaintiffs and the other to the defendants. The first appellate court confirmed the decree. The petitioners contended that the impugned judgment and decree were perverse and suffered from material irregularities, as the courts below failed to appreciate the evidence on record and erroneously held that the plaintiffs were entitled to partition. The respondents argued that the concurrent findings of fact were based on proper appreciation of evidence and that the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, should not interfere with such findings unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The High Court, after hearing both sides, examined the records and found that the courts below had properly appreciated the evidence, including oral testimony and documents, and had recorded concurrent findings of fact that the plaintiffs had proved their title and possession over the suit property and that the defendants were in possession of their respective shares. The court held that the findings were not perverse or arbitrary and that there was no error of law or procedural irregularity warranting interference under Article 227. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and the impugned judgment and decree were upheld.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Scope of Interference - The High Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, does not act as an appellate court and cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own findings for those of the courts below unless the findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or suffer from a patent error of law or procedural irregularity. - Held that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the first appellate court in a suit for partition and separate possession were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not warrant interference under Article 227. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure - Partition Suit - Concurrent Findings of Fact - The courts below concurrently held that the plaintiffs (petitioners) failed to prove their exclusive title and possession over the suit property and that the defendants (respondents) were in possession of their respective shares. - Held that the findings were based on evidence, including oral testimony and documents, and were not perverse or arbitrary. (Paras 5-9) C) Civil Procedure - Decree for Partition and Separate Possession - The trial court decreed the suit for partition and separate possession, directing division of the suit property into two equal shares and allotting one share to the plaintiffs and the other to the defendants. - Held that the decree was just and proper, and the High Court declined to interfere. (Para 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below in a suit for partition and separate possession, particularly when the petitioners alleged that the impugned judgment and decree were perverse and suffered from material irregularities.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge-2, Shrirampur, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 82 of 2008, which confirmed the decree passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shrirampur, in Regular Civil Suit No. 42 of 2001.
Law Points
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India
- scope of interference with concurrent findings of fact
- partition suit
- separate possession
- civil court decree
- writ jurisdiction
- limited jurisdiction
- perverse findings
- error of law
- procedural irregularity
