Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to two second appeals filed by the original plaintiff, Adinath Bapuji Mangudkar (since deceased, represented by his heirs), against the judgment and order dated 16.11.1985 passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Solapur, in Civil Appeal Nos. 150 of 1982 and 151 of 1982. The appeals arose from two suits: Regular Civil Suit No. 68 of 1972 filed on 22.4.1972 for specific performance of a contract dated 27.10.1964 to reconvey a sale deed, and Regular Civil Suit No. 154 of 1970 filed on 20.7.1970 for possession of allegedly encroached land which was part of the same property. Both suits were dismissed by the trial court, and the lower appellate court also dismissed the appeals, leading to the present second appeals. The appellant argued that the courts below erred in dismissing the suits, but the High Court found that the concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and did not give rise to any substantial question of law. The court noted that the issues involved were factual and that the appellant failed to demonstrate any perversity or legal error. Consequently, both second appeals were dismissed, and the judgment of the lower appellate court was upheld. The court also observed that the appeals were taken up for hearing together and disposed of by a common judgment as the issues and property were the same.
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 a substantial question of law is involved. The appellant failed to demonstrate any such question, and the appeals were dismissed. (Paras 1-3)
B) Contract Law - Specific Performance - Limitation - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The suit for specific performance of a contract dated 27.10.1964 was filed in 1972, and the courts below dismissed it on facts. The High Court upheld the dismissal, finding no error in the concurrent findings. (Paras 2-3)
C) Property Law - Possession - Encroachment - The suit for possession of allegedly encroached land was also dismissed concurrently. The High Court affirmed the dismissal, noting that the findings of fact were not perverse. (Paras 2-3)
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 courts below.
Final Decision
Both second appeals are dismissed. The judgment and order dated 16.11.1985 passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Solapur, in Civil Appeal No. 150 of 1982 and Civil Appeal No. 151 of 1982 are upheld.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- concurrent findings of fact
- no substantial question of law
- specific performance of contract
- limitation
- possession
- encroachment
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (05) 181
Second Appeal No. 502 of 1986 and Second Appeal No. 506 of 1986
Mr. A. A. Kumbhakoni for the appellants in both appeals, Mr. R.M. Agrawal for the respondent No.1 in both appeals, Mr. M.A. Choudhari for the respondent No.2 in Second Appeal No. 506 of 1986
Adinath Bapuji Mangudkar (since deceased, by his heirs and legal representatives): 1) Padmakar Adinath Mangudkar (since deceased through his heir and legal representatives): (1-A) Padmaraj Padmakar Mangudkar, 2. Sou Sindhutai Ratanlal Korde
1. Jaykumar Gopinath Kshetrapal, 2. Sou. Alka Abhaykumar Purwat (only in Second Appeal No. 506 of 1986)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil second appeals against dismissal of suits for specific performance of contract and possession of property.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought to set aside the judgment of the lower appellate court and decree the suits for specific performance and possession.
Filing Reason
The original plaintiff filed suits for specific performance of a contract dated 27.10.1964 and for possession of allegedly encroached land; both suits were dismissed by the trial court and lower appellate court.
Previous Decisions
The trial court dismissed Regular Civil Suit No. 68 of 1972 and Regular Civil Suit No. 154 of 1970. The 4th Additional District Judge, Solapur, dismissed Civil Appeal No. 150 of 1982 and Civil Appeal No. 151 of 1982, and allowed the cross-objection in Civil Appeal No. 150 of 1982.
Issues
Whether the second appeals involve any substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC.
Whether the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below are perverse or erroneous.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the courts below erred in dismissing the suits and that the findings were against the evidence.
Respondents supported the concurrent findings and argued that no substantial question of law arose.
Ratio Decidendi
In a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless a substantial question of law is involved. The appellant failed to raise any such question, and the appeals were dismissed.
Judgment Excerpts
Both these appeals are taken up for hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment as the issues involved as well as the property in question and the parties to the dispute are one and the same.
The appellant in both the appeals has filed the present appeals against the judgment and order dated 16.11.1985 passed by the 4th Addl. District Judge, Solapur in Civil Appeal No. 150 of 1982 and 151 of 1982 and allowing the cross-objection in Civil Appeal No. 150 of 1982.
Procedural History
The original plaintiff filed R.C.S. No. 68 of 1972 on 22.4.1972 for specific performance and R.C.S. No. 154 of 1970 on 20.7.1970 for possession. Both suits were dismissed by the trial court. The plaintiff appealed to the District Court, which dismissed the appeals and allowed a cross-objection. The plaintiff then filed the present second appeals in the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
