Case Note & Summary
The case involves a land dispute where the original plaintiff (Mohd. Ayyub Mohd. Bashir and others) filed a suit for declaration of ownership and injunction against the original opponents (Ramdas Rupla Wagh and others). The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, and the first appellate court confirmed the decree. The opponents then filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed both the writ petition and the second appeal, holding that the concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and did not suffer from any perversity or jurisdictional error. The court emphasized that the scope of interference under Article 227 is limited and that no substantial question of law arose in the second appeal. The decision was rendered by a single judge of the Bombay High Court.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Concurrent Findings of Fact - Scope of Interference - The High Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and first appellate court in a suit for declaration of ownership and injunction, as no substantial question of law arose and the findings were not perverse or based on no evidence. (Paras 1-18)
B) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Jurisdiction - The court held that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction or perversity and cannot be used to reappreciate evidence when findings are concurrent. (Paras 1-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court should interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and first appellate court in a suit for declaration of ownership and injunction.
Final Decision
Both the Writ Petition No. 1728 of 2014 and Second Appeal No. 516 of 2014 are dismissed. The concurrent findings of the lower courts are upheld.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact
- substantial question of law
- jurisdiction under Article 227
- scope of interference in second appeal
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (08) 220
WRIT PETITION NO. 1728 OF 2014 and SECOND APPEAL NO. 516 OF 2014
Mr. R.B. Raghuvanshi i/by. Ms. Rutuja Ambekar
Ramdas Rupla Wagh (died) through L.R.s. (1A) Smt. Vithabai Ramdas Wagh, 1B) Shri. Bhausaheb Ramdas Wagh, 1C) Shri. Avinash Ramdas Wagh)
1) Mohd. Ayyub Mohd. Bashir, 2) Mohd. Farooque Mohd. Ayub, 3) Anna Tanna Pagare (died) through legal heirs Smt. Shantabai Chiman Diware, 4) Kadubai Dayaram Kedare, 5) Sau. Chayabai Vinayak Bachhav, 6) Sau. Jayabai Madhukar Nikam, 7) Sau. Alka Ramesh Nikam
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for declaration of ownership and injunction regarding land.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners (original opponents) sought to challenge the concurrent decrees of the trial court and first appellate court by way of writ petition under Article 227 and second appeal under Section 100 CPC.
Filing Reason
The petitioners were aggrieved by the concurrent findings of fact that declared the respondents as owners and granted injunction against the petitioners.
Previous Decisions
The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondents, and the first appellate court confirmed the decree.
Issues
Whether the High Court should interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC?
Whether the writ petition under Article 227 is maintainable when concurrent findings are based on evidence?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the findings of the lower courts were perverse and not based on evidence.
The respondents supported the concurrent findings and argued that no interference was warranted.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence, and no substantial question of law arises in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC.
Judgment Excerpts
The court held that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below are based on evidence and do not call for interference.
Procedural History
The original plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction. The trial court decreed the suit. The first appellate court confirmed the decree. The opponents then filed a writ petition under Article 227 and a second appeal under Section 100 CPC before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
- Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 227
