Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a civil revision application filed by the original defendant nos. 1 and 2, Smt. Manju w/o Baldev Narang and Sapna d/o Baldev Narang (now Sapna w/o Mithun Kureekkasere), challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.2.2013 passed by the Principal District Judge, Ahmednagar, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 209 of 2007, which confirmed the judgment and decree dated 14.7.2005 passed by the IInd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmednagar, in Regular Civil Suit No. 555 of 2004. The respondents, Prakash s/o Manohar Lokhande and others, filed the suit for possession and mesne profits against the original defendant no.1 (Baldev Narang) and others, claiming that Baldev Narang was a tenant in the suit property and that the tenancy was terminated by a notice. The trial court decreed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed the decree. The applicants, who are the daughter-in-law and granddaughter of Baldev Narang, claimed that they had independent title to the property and were not bound by the tenancy. The High Court, in revision, examined the concurrent findings of the courts below. The court noted that the applicants had not produced any evidence to prove their independent title. The court held that the findings of the courts below were based on evidence and were not perverse. The court further held that the scope of revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is limited and does not permit re-appreciation of evidence. The court dismissed the revision application, confirming the decree for possession and mesne profits.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Revision - Section 115 CPC - Scope of Interference - The High Court in revision cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own findings unless the lower court has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it or acted illegally or with material irregularity - Held that concurrent findings of fact based on evidence are not to be disturbed in revision (Paras 5-6). B) Tenancy Law - Termination of Tenancy - Mesne Profits - Suit for Possession - The plaintiffs proved that the defendant was a tenant and that the tenancy was validly terminated by notice - The defendant's daughter-in-law and granddaughter, claiming independent title, failed to prove any independent right - Held that after termination of tenancy, the tenant and his family members are liable to be evicted and to pay mesne profits (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below regarding the termination of tenancy and the entitlement of the plaintiffs to possession and mesne profits are perverse or suffer from any jurisdictional error warranting interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The Civil Revision Application is dismissed. The judgment and decree of the first appellate court confirming the trial court's decree for possession and mesne profits are upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Tenancy rights
- Termination of tenancy
- Mesne profits
- Concurrent findings
- Scope of revision under Section 115 CPC
- Independent title claim by family members
