Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Barku s/o Dago Uke, filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 30th September 1991 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gondia in Regular Civil Appeal No. 99/1987, which confirmed the decree of permanent injunction granted by the Civil Judge Jr. Division, Gondia in Regular Civil Suit No. 232/1979. The suit was filed by the predecessor-in-title of the respondents (plaintiffs) against the appellant (defendant) seeking permanent injunction in respect of suit land plot no. 2301 situated in Killa Ward, Tiroda, admeasuring about 48 North X 48 South X 13 East X 11 West. The plaintiff claimed that the land was purchased from the defendant in 1960 for a consideration of Rs.50, and physical possession was delivered. Since then, the plaintiff was in peaceful, undisturbed possession and paying municipal taxes from 1960-61. In 1979, the defendant attempted to disturb possession, leading to the suit. The defendant denied the sale and claimed that the plaintiff was a trespasser. The trial court decreed the suit, holding that the plaintiff had proved possession and that the sale was valid. The first appellate court confirmed the decree. In the second appeal, the appellant argued that the courts below erred in relying on an unregistered sale deed and that the plaintiff failed to prove title. The High Court held that in a suit for injunction, possession is the relevant factor and title need not be conclusively proved. The concurrent findings of fact regarding possession and payment of taxes were based on evidence and could not be interfered with in second appeal. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Permanent Injunction - Possession and Title - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 54, Section 53A - Suit for permanent injunction based on purchase of land in 1960 for Rs.50 without registered sale deed - Trial court and first appellate court decreed suit relying on plaintiff's long possession and payment of municipal taxes - Held that in a suit for injunction, possession is the relevant factor and title need not be conclusively proved; concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed in second appeal under Section 100 CPC (Paras 1-10). B) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Interference with Concurrent Findings - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 100 - Second appeal against concurrent findings of fact - Appellant failed to show any substantial question of law - Held that High Court cannot reappreciate evidence in second appeal unless findings are perverse or based on no evidence (Paras 8-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the first appellate court erred in confirming the trial court's decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff based on possession and part performance, despite the alleged lack of valid title due to absence of registered sale deed?
Final Decision
Second appeal dismissed. Judgment and decree of the first appellate court confirming the trial court's decree of permanent injunction upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act
- 1882
- Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act
- Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908
- Possession as evidence of title
- Concurrent findings of fact not interfered with in second appeal
