Case Note & Summary
The appellant, M/s. Samruddhi Developers, a partnership firm, filed four second appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the trial court and the first appellate court in suits for possession filed by the respondents. The respondents, Kiran Vasant Verekar, Rajuram Mangilal Banshiwal, Suhas Hanumant Tawde, and another, had each filed separate suits claiming possession of immovable properties based on their title and prior possession. The trial court decreed the suits in favor of the respondents, and the first appellate court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellant, affirming the trial court's findings. The appellant then approached the High Court in second appeal. The High Court, after hearing the parties, observed that the appeals did not involve any substantial question of law. The findings of fact recorded by the courts below were concurrent and based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The court noted that the appellant had failed to point out any perversity or illegality in the findings that would warrant interference under Section 100 CPC. Consequently, the High Court dismissed all four second appeals along with the pending civil applications, holding that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The court also directed that the appellant shall pay costs of Rs. 25,000 to each of the respondents, totaling Rs. 1,00,000, within four weeks.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court considered whether the appeals involved any substantial question of law. It held that the findings of fact recorded by the trial court and first appellate court were concurrent and based on appreciation of evidence, and no substantial question of law arose for consideration. (Paras 1-5) B) Possession - Suit for Possession - Title and Prior Possession - The respondents filed suits for possession based on title and prior possession. The courts below decreed the suits, and the appellant's challenge in second appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law was involved. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 involve any substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below.
Final Decision
All four second appeals are dismissed. Pending civil applications are disposed of. Appellant to pay costs of Rs. 25,000 to each respondent within four weeks.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC limited to substantial questions of law
- concurrent findings of fact not to be interfered with
- no substantial question of law arises when findings are based on appreciation of evidence
