Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal filed by Manohar Sampat Bavaskar (original defendant no.1) against the judgment and decree of the District Court, Jalgaon, which confirmed the trial court's decree for partition and separate possession in favor of the respondents (original plaintiffs). The suit property was claimed by the appellant as his exclusive property, while the respondents contended it was ancestral joint family property. The trial court and the first appellate court concurrently found that the property was ancestral and that the appellant failed to prove his exclusive title. The High Court, in the second appeal under Section 100 CPC, examined whether any substantial question of law arose. The court held that the concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and not perverse. The appellant's arguments regarding limitation and the nature of the property were rejected. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decree for partition. The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of second appeal and the principle that concurrent findings of fact cannot be lightly interfered with.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court reiterated that in a second appeal, interference with concurrent findings of fact is permissible only if the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The appellant failed to demonstrate any perversity or substantial question of law. (Paras 1-10) B) Hindu Law - Partition - Ancestral Property - Burden of Proof - The appellant-defendant claimed exclusive title to the suit property, but the courts below concurrently held that the property was ancestral joint family property. The appellant did not discharge the burden of proving exclusive ownership. (Paras 5-8) C) Limitation - Suit for Partition - Article 110 Limitation Act, 1963 - The suit for partition was filed within limitation as the plaintiff's right to partition accrued on denial of share. The concurrent findings on limitation were not disturbed. (Paras 6-9)
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 in a suit for partition and separate possession.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, affirming the decree for partition and separate possession passed by the courts below.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- concurrent findings of fact
- no substantial question of law
- partition suit
- ancestral property
- joint family property
- burden of proof
- limitation
