Case Note & Summary
The present second appeal was filed by the Municipal Council, Amalner, challenging the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the first appellate court. The original plaintiff, Saraswati Keshav Pol (since deceased, represented by her legal heirs), had filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the Municipal Council claiming ownership and possession of CTS No.3282/A, a constructed premises in Amalner where she ran a restaurant and resided since 1966. She contended that although the Municipal Council had reserved the area for an Octroi Naka in 1973, the reservation was withdrawn upon her request by letter dated 10.03.1975. On 27.06.1998, the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council visited the property and directed her to vacate within 24 hours, claiming a subsisting reservation. The plaintiff sought a declaration that she was the owner and possessor and that the defendant had no right to evict her. The trial court decreed the suit on 16.04.2008, and the first appellate court dismissed the Municipal Council's appeal on 08.01.2015. In the second appeal, the Municipal Council argued that the courts below erred in relying on the plaintiff's evidence and that the reservation was not validly withdrawn. The High Court examined the evidence, including the sale deed, tax receipts, and the letter withdrawing reservation. It found that the plaintiff had proved her ownership and possession, while the defendant failed to produce any document showing a subsisting reservation or title. The court held that the concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and not perverse, and no substantial question of law arose. The second appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - The appellant-defendant challenged concurrent findings of fact regarding ownership and possession of suit property - The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose as the findings were based on evidence and not perverse - The appeal was dismissed (Paras 1-10). B) Property Law - Ownership and Possession - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff proved ownership through sale deed and possession through tax receipts and ration card - The defendant failed to produce any document to show reservation or title - Held that the plaintiff's evidence was sufficient to establish her rights (Paras 2-8).
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 decree of the first appellate court are confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in second appeal under Section 100 CPC unless perverse or based on no evidence
- Ownership and possession must be proved by documentary evidence
- Reservation of land by municipal authority does not confer ownership without acquisition
