Case Note & Summary
The plaintiff, Wasudeo s/o Jagoba Wabhitkar, filed Regular Civil Suit No.185 of 1979 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Warora, seeking an injunction to restrain the defendants from disturbing his possession over 3 acres of land bearing Survey No.142. The land originally belonged to the plaintiff's brother Bholaram, who was allotted 5.96 acres in a family partition in 1965. Bholaram sold 2.96 acres to defendant No.3 in 1968 and the remaining 3 acres to the plaintiff on 2-5-1969. The plaintiff claimed that he was in possession of the 3 acres and that defendant No.3 obstructed his possession, leading to the suit. The defendants contended that defendant No.3 had purchased the entire 5.96 acres from Bholaram by a registered sale deed dated 31-12-1968 and was in possession, and that the plaintiff was only a lessee for three years. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, but the appellate court reversed the decree, dismissing the suit. The plaintiff then filed this second appeal. The High Court framed a substantial question of law regarding whether the appellate court's findings were perverse. The court analyzed the evidence, noting that the plaintiff had produced the sale deed dated 2-5-1969 and revenue entries showing his possession, while the defendants failed to prove their possession. The court held that the appellate court's conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove possession was not supported by evidence and was perverse. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the appellate judgment, and restored the trial court's decree of injunction.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - The court considered whether the lower appellate court's findings were perverse or based on no evidence, and whether the plaintiff had proved his possession. Held that the appellate court's conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove possession was not supported by evidence, as the plaintiff had produced sale deed and revenue entries showing possession, and the defendants' claim of possession was not proved. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence Act - Burden of Proof - Possession - In a suit for injunction, the plaintiff must prove his possession on the date of suit. The court held that the plaintiff had discharged this burden by showing sale deed in his favor and revenue entries, while the defendants failed to prove their possession. The appellate court's reversal of the trial court's decree was set aside. (Paras 5-10) C) Specific Relief Act - Injunction - Permanent Injunction - Section 38 - The plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining defendants from disturbing his possession. The court held that since the plaintiff proved his possession, he was entitled to the injunction as granted by the trial court. (Paras 1, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff proved his possession over the suit land and his entitlement to an injunction against the defendants.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Chandrapur, and restored the decree of the Trial Court granting injunction in favor of the plaintiff.
Law Points
- Burden of proof
- Possession
- Injunction
- Sale deed
- Registered document
- Preponderance of probabilities
