Case Note & Summary
The dispute in this case revolves around a property, Gat No.729, situated at village Khamgaon, Taluka Phaltan, District Satara, measuring 2 hectares and 14 ares. The plaintiff, Maruti Krushna Jagtap, filed a suit for declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction against the defendant, Subhash Krushnaji Jagtap, who is his brother. The plaintiff claimed that he purchased the suit property and has been in continuous possession since the date of purchase. The defendant resisted the suit, alleging that the entire consideration for the purchase was paid by him, but due to technical difficulties and cordial relations, the sale deed was executed in the plaintiff's name. The defendant further claimed that he had invested money in leveling the land and constructing a cattle shed, where he had been residing for 10-12 years prior to the suit. The trial court framed issues regarding ownership and entitlement to injunction. Both parties adduced evidence. The trial court, by judgment dated 12/4/2012, answered both issues in favor of the plaintiff, declaring him the owner and granting a perpetual injunction against the defendant. The defendant appealed to the District Court, which confirmed the trial court's decision by judgment dated 25/09/2012. Aggrieved, the defendant filed a second appeal before the High Court. The High Court, after hearing counsel, framed a substantial question of law regarding whether the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was maintainable. The court noted that the findings of the courts below were concurrent and based on evidence. The defendant's claim of paying consideration was not supported by credible evidence, and the plaintiff's name in the sale deed was conclusive of title. The court held that no substantial question of law arose and dismissed the second appeal, confirming the judgments of the lower courts.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - Concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in second appeal unless shown to be perverse or based on no evidence - The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate any perversity or error of law in the findings of the trial court and first appellate court regarding ownership and possession of the suit property (Paras 6-8). B) Property Law - Title and Ownership - Sale Deed as Evidence - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - The plaintiff's name in the sale deed is prima facie evidence of title, and the burden lies on the defendant to prove that the transaction was benami or that consideration was paid by him - The court held that the defendant's claim of paying consideration was not supported by credible evidence, and the concurrent findings of ownership in favor of the plaintiff were correct (Paras 4-7).
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 the courts below.
Final Decision
The Second Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 25/09/2012 passed by the District Judge-2, Satara in Regular Civil Appeal No.181 of 2012 confirming the judgment and decree dated 12/4/2012 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Phaltan in Regular Civil Suit No.44/2011 is confirmed. No order as to costs. Civil Application No.1808 of 2012 is disposed of accordingly.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact not interfered with in second appeal unless perverse
- Sale deed is conclusive evidence of title
- Burden of proof on defendant to establish benami transaction
