Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Raosaheb Anand Shinde, filed a second appeal against the judgment and order of the Additional District Judge, Sangli dated 18.8.1989, which dismissed his appeal and confirmed the judgment of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sangli dated 30.12.1982 dismissing his suit for declaration and injunction against the State of Maharashtra. The appellant claimed that his father, Anand Krishna Shinde, held agricultural land bearing R.S.No.422 at village Kupwad, Taluka Miraj, District Sangli as an owner subject to restraint regarding impartibility. The father died on 8.3.1980 and allegedly bequeathed the suit land to the appellant by will. The appellant sought a declaration of ownership and injunction against the State. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed the dismissal. The High Court, in second appeal, found that the appellant failed to prove his title and that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were not perverse. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Scope - Section 100 CPC - The High Court in second appeal cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence - The appellant failed to show any substantial question of law - Held that the appeal was devoid of merit (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant/plaintiff proved his title to the suit land and whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts were perverse or contrary to law.
Final Decision
The Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Burden of proof
- Ownership
- Will
- Impartibility
- Concurrent findings
- Second appeal
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (09) 109
Second Appeal No.500 of 1989
Mr. P.L. Naik for Appellant, Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, AGP for Respondent
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for declaration and injunction
Remedy Sought
Declaration of ownership and injunction against the State
Filing Reason
Appellant claimed ownership of suit land based on a will from his father
Previous Decisions
Trial court dismissed suit on 30.12.1982; first appellate court dismissed appeal on 18.8.1989
Issues
Whether the appellant proved his title to the suit land?
Whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts were perverse or contrary to law?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the lower courts erred in dismissing the suit and that the will was valid.
Respondent/State supported the concurrent findings.
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 raise any substantial question of law.
Judgment Excerpts
The Appellant has preferred this Appeal against the Judgment and Order passed by Addl. District Judge Sangli dated 18.8.1989 dismissing the Appeal and confirming the Judgment and Order passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sangli dated 30.12.1982 dismissing the Plaintiff’s suit for declaration and injunction against the State.
One Anand Krishna Shinde, father of the present Plaintiff, died on 8.3.1980. He held agricultural land bearing R.S.No.422, which was situated at village Kupwad, Taluka Miraj, District Sangli as an owner subject to restrain regarding impartibility.
Procedural History
The appellant filed a suit for declaration and injunction in the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sangli, which was dismissed on 30.12.1982. The appellant appealed to the Additional District Judge, Sangli, who dismissed the appeal on 18.8.1989. The appellant then filed a second appeal in the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 22.9.2005.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
