Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal filed by the original defendant No.1, Balasaheb Govind Basugade, challenging concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the trial court and the first appellate court in a suit for possession based on title filed by the original plaintiff, Rajendra Shivaji Kumthekar. The plaintiff claimed that the suit property, originally owned by Shidappa Mahaling Mahajan, was purchased by his grandfather, Rama Bhau Kumathekar, under a registered sale deed. After selling a share to Laxman Bhau Basugade, the remaining land (suit property) was renumbered as CST No.1429-A. The plaintiff alleged that one Govind Martanda Basugade, brother-in-law of Rama, was given permissive possession of the suit property at his request, and after Govind's death, the defendants (his son and family members) continued in permissive possession. The plaintiff sought possession on the basis of title. The defendants contested the suit, claiming ownership through adverse possession. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the defendants failed to prove adverse possession and that their possession was permissive. The first appellate court confirmed this decree. In the second appeal, the appellant argued that the courts below erred in holding that the defendants' possession was permissive and that the plaintiff had proved title. The High Court, after hearing counsel, found that the concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and were not perverse. The court noted that the appellant failed to raise any substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed at the admission stage, and the interim application was disposed of.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - The court considered whether concurrent findings of fact regarding permissive possession and failure to prove adverse possession could be interfered with in a second appeal. Held that no substantial question of law arose as the findings were based on evidence and not perverse. (Paras 2-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Second Appeal raises any substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, warranting interference with concurrent findings of fact by the courts below.
Final Decision
Second Appeal dismissed at the admission stage. Interim Application disposed of.
Law Points
- Second appeal
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- permissive possession
- adverse possession
- title suit
- Section 100 CPC
