Case Note & Summary
The case involves a money suit filed by the respondent (original plaintiff) against the appellant (original defendant) for recovery of Rs. 9165/- with interest. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant, being in need of money, borrowed the amount and executed a promissory note. The defendant denied the transaction. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, and the first appeal was dismissed. The defendant filed a second appeal in the Bombay High Court. The High Court noted that the second appeal was admitted on the question whether the plaintiff proved the suit claim. The court observed that the first appeal had been transferred to the District Court due to amendment of the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869, and was decided on 30th September 2004. The High Court found that both the trial court and the first appellate court had concurrently held that the plaintiff had proved the loan transaction. The appellant failed to show any perversity or error of law in the findings. The court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration and dismissed the second appeal, confirming the decree.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - The court held that in a second appeal, interference with concurrent findings of fact is permissible only if the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The appellant failed to demonstrate any perversity in the findings of the courts below. (Paras 1-5) B) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Money Suit - The plaintiff had discharged the initial burden by adducing evidence of the loan transaction. The defendant's denial was not supported by credible evidence. The courts below correctly held that the plaintiff proved the suit claim. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff proved the suit claim, and whether the second appeal raises a substantial question of law warranting interference with concurrent findings of fact.
Final Decision
Second Appeal dismissed. The decree passed by the trial court and confirmed by the first appellate court is upheld.
Law Points
- Second appeal
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- interference limited to perversity
- burden of proof
- money decree
