Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal filed by the original plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court which reversed the trial court's decree. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction in respect of agricultural land. The trial court decreed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed it, dismissing the suit. The plaintiffs then filed the present second appeal. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found that the findings of fact recorded by the lower appellate court were based on appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. The court reiterated the limited scope of interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and held that no substantial question of law arose. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Concurrent Findings of Fact - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court held that in a second appeal, the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence and interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless the findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to law. The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, can be entertained when the findings of fact by the lower appellate court are concurrent and not shown to be perverse or based on no evidence.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arose and the findings of fact were not perverse.
Law Points
- Second appeal
- concurrent findings of fact
- perversity
- substantial question of law
- Section 100 CPC
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (01) 25
Second Appeal No. 0282 of 2015
Subabai Shivram Patil (since deceased) per L.R. Chandrakant Shivram Patil and others
Dharamsing Julalsing Patil (since deceased) per L.R. Jijabai Dharamsing Patil and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeal against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court in a suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction.
Remedy Sought
The appellants (original plaintiffs) sought to set aside the judgment of the lower appellate court and restore the trial court's decree.
Filing Reason
The appellants were aggrieved by the reversal of the trial court's decree by the first appellate court.
Previous Decisions
The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs. The first appellate court reversed the decree and dismissed the suit.
Issues
Whether the second appeal under Section 100 CPC can be entertained when the findings of fact are concurrent and not perverse.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the lower appellate court erred in reversing the trial court's decree.
Respondents supported the findings of the lower appellate court.
Ratio Decidendi
In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence and interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless the findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to law.
Judgment Excerpts
The court held that the second appellate court cannot reappreciate evidence and interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless perverse or based on no evidence.
Procedural History
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and injunction in the trial court, which was decreed. The defendants appealed to the first appellate court, which reversed the decree. The plaintiffs then filed the present second appeal in the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
