Case Note & Summary
The case involves two cross suits between Chandrakant Ramchandra Godhvinde (appellant) and Anna Bhau Lone (respondent) concerning a property admeasuring 771 sq. yards in Survey No.14(p) at Village Khadavali, Taluka Kalyan. The appellant filed Regular Civil Suit No.560 of 1997 seeking perpetual injunction, claiming he purchased the suit property from Yeshwant Gajanan Gupte under a registered sale deed dated 22nd October 1997. He alleged that the respondent, who owned an adjacent plot, encroached upon his land and tried to demolish his fencing. The respondent filed Regular Civil Suit No.110 of 1998 against the appellant and the common vendor, claiming title and possession. The trial court dismissed the appellant's suit and decreed the respondent's suit, holding that the appellant failed to prove his title and that the respondent had established his ownership and possession. The first appellate court confirmed these findings. The appellant filed two second appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court, after hearing extensive arguments, held that the concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and were not perverse. The court found no substantial question of law involved and dismissed both appeals with costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court considered whether the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the first appellate court were perverse or based on no evidence. Held that the findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not give rise to any substantial question of law. (Paras 1-10)
B) Property Law - Encroachment - Title - Burden of Proof - The appellant claimed ownership of suit property based on a registered sale deed, while the respondent claimed encroachment. The courts below found that the appellant failed to prove title and that the respondent had established possession and title. Held that the concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in second appeal. (Paras 2-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Second Appeals involve any substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, given the concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the first appellate court.
Final Decision
Both Second Appeals are dismissed with costs.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC
- Perversity of findings
- Appreciation of evidence
- Burden of proof in civil suits
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (03) 148
Second Appeal No. 81 of 2005 and Second Appeal No. 83 of 2005
Shri P.K. Dhakephalkar with Shri Jaydeep S. Deo for the Appellant; Shri R.M. Nakhawa with Shri V.B. Dhawan for the Respondent
Chandrakant Ramchandra Godhvinde
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil second appeals arising from cross suits for perpetual injunction and declaration of title.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to set aside the concurrent judgments and decrees of the trial court and first appellate court which dismissed his suit and decreed the respondent's suit.
Filing Reason
Appellant claimed ownership of suit property based on a registered sale deed and alleged encroachment by respondent; respondent claimed title and possession.
Previous Decisions
Trial court dismissed appellant's suit and decreed respondent's suit; first appellate court confirmed the trial court's findings.
Issues
Whether the concurrent findings of fact are perverse or based on no evidence.
Whether any substantial question of law arises under Section 100 CPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the findings of the courts below were perverse and based on misappreciation of evidence.
Respondent supported the concurrent findings and submitted that no substantial question of law arises.
Ratio Decidendi
In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. The appellant failed to demonstrate any perversity or substantial question of law.
Judgment Excerpts
These Second Appeals were heard extensively yesterday at the stage of admission.
I have heard detailed submissions made by Shri Dhakephalkar appearing for the Appellant and Shri Nakhawa appearing for the Respondent.
These two Appeals arise out of cross suits filed by the parties which were decided by a common Judgment and even the Appeals arising out of the said Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court were heard and decided together.
Procedural History
Appellant filed Regular Civil Suit No.560 of 1997 for perpetual injunction. Respondent filed Regular Civil Suit No.110 of 1998 for declaration and injunction. Trial court decided both suits by common judgment, dismissing appellant's suit and decreeing respondent's suit. First appellate court confirmed the trial court's judgment. Appellant filed two second appeals under Section 100 CPC, which were heard together and dismissed by the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
