Bombay High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Suit for Possession and Mesne Profits — Concurrent Findings of Fact Not Interfered With. Appellant's claim of tenancy and adverse possession rejected as not proved.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD
  • 10
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves a second appeal filed by Dhondiba Namdeorao Bhosale, original defendant No.6, against the judgment and decree passed by the District Court, which confirmed the trial court's decree in favor of the plaintiffs (respondents herein) for possession and mesne profits of the suit property. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for possession and mesne profits against several defendants, including the appellant, claiming title to the property. The appellant contended that he was a tenant of the suit property and had become owner by adverse possession. The trial court decreed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs had proved their title and that the appellant failed to prove his tenancy or adverse possession. The first appellate court confirmed this finding. In the second appeal, the appellant argued that the courts below had erred in not properly appreciating the evidence regarding his tenancy. The High Court, however, found that the findings of fact recorded by the courts below were concurrent and not shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. The court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - Concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in second appeal unless shown to be perverse or based on no evidence - The appellant failed to prove his tenancy or adverse possession, and the courts below concurrently held against him - No substantial question of law arose (Paras 1-5).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, raises any substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below regarding the appellant's claim of tenancy and adverse possession.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Second appeal
  • substantial question of law
  • concurrent findings of fact
  • interference limited to perversity
  • tenancy
  • adverse possession
  • burden of proof
  • Section 100 CPC
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2013 LawText (BOM) (06) 18

Second Appeal No.283/1987

2013-06-24

A.B. Chaudhari

Mr. SS Bora

Dhondiba Namdeorao Bhosale

Syed Ismail Syed Asadulla (died through L.Rs.) and others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Second appeal against concurrent findings in a suit for possession and mesne profits.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought to set aside the concurrent decrees for possession and mesne profits passed against him.

Filing Reason

Appellant claimed tenancy and adverse possession over the suit property, which was rejected by both lower courts.

Previous Decisions

Trial court decreed suit for possession and mesne profits; first appellate court confirmed the decree.

Issues

Whether the appellant proved his tenancy over the suit property? Whether the appellant acquired title by adverse possession? Whether the second appeal raises any substantial question of law?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the courts below erred in not properly appreciating evidence regarding his tenancy. Respondents supported the concurrent findings of fact.

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 substantial question of law.

Judgment Excerpts

This appeal is by original defendant No.6, who was unsuccessful in both the courts below. The learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any perversity in the findings recorded by the courts below. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal.

Procedural History

The plaintiffs filed a suit for possession and mesne profits against several defendants. The trial court decreed the suit. The appellant (defendant No.6) appealed to the District Court, which confirmed the decree. The appellant then filed the present second appeal in the High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Suit for Possession and Mesne Profits — Concurrent Findings of Fact Not Interfered With. Appellant's claim of tenancy and adverse possession rejected as not proved.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Appellant in Dowry Death and Abetment of Suicide Case Due to Lack of Evidence of Demand for Dowry and Cruelty. Conviction under Sections 304-B, 306, 498-A IPC and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act set aside as prosecution fail...