Case Note & Summary
This is a second appeal arising from a civil suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction. The appellant, Parubai Savliram Kshatriya (since deceased, through her legal heir Anusayabai Ganpat Bakale), filed the suit against the respondents, including Shankar Ganusa Kshatriya (since deceased, through his legal heirs) and others, claiming ownership and possession of certain property. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed the dismissal. The appellant then filed this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found that the courts below had concurrently held that the appellant failed to prove her title and possession. The court noted that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, as the findings were based on evidence and were not perverse. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The court also noted that the appeal was dismissed as against respondent No.1D and respondent No.5 vide Additional Registrar's order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court held that in a second appeal, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The appellant failed to demonstrate any substantial question of law. (Paras 1-2) B) Property Law - Declaration of Ownership - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff sought declaration of ownership and injunction but failed to prove title and possession. The courts below concurrently dismissed the suit. The High Court upheld the dismissal, noting that the plaintiff did not discharge the burden of proof. (Paras 1-2)
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 fact recorded by the courts below.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. No substantial question of law. Concurrent findings of fact upheld.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- concurrent findings of fact
- no substantial question of law
- burden of proof on plaintiff to prove title and possession
