Case Note & Summary
The appellants, as plaintiffs, filed a suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction in respect of certain immovable property. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 97 of 2013 confirmed the dismissal. The plaintiffs then preferred the present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court, after hearing the counsel for the appellants and perusing the impugned judgments, found that the courts below had concurrently held that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title and possession. The High Court noted that the findings were based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and were not perverse. The court reiterated that in a second appeal, the jurisdiction is limited to substantial questions of law, and no such question arose in this case. Consequently, the Second Appeal was dismissed at the admission stage itself, upholding the concurrent findings.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The appellant-plaintiff challenged concurrent findings of fact in a suit for declaration of ownership and injunction - The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises as the findings are based on appreciation of evidence and are not perverse - The appeal was dismissed at the admission stage itself (Paras 1-3).
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.
Final Decision
The Second Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. The concurrent findings of the courts below are upheld.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- concurrent findings of fact
- substantial question of law
- interference with findings of fact
- appreciation of evidence
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (11) 373
Second Appeal No. 289 of 2020
Mr. Nikhil M. Pujari for Appellants; Mr. Amey Deshpande, Ms. Niyati Sontakke for Respondent Nos. 5 to 7
Rohit Ramesh Palve and Rekha Ramesh Palve
Tula Shankar Palave and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction
Remedy Sought
Appellants (plaintiffs) sought declaration of ownership and permanent injunction against respondents
Filing Reason
Appellants claimed ownership and possession of property, which was disputed by respondents
Previous Decisions
Trial court dismissed the suit; first appellate court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 97 of 2013 confirmed the dismissal on 15th April, 2019
Issues
Whether the Second Appeal raises any substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the findings of the courts below were perverse and against the evidence on record.
Ratio Decidendi
In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence, and no substantial question of law arises for consideration.
Judgment Excerpts
The Second Appeal has been preferred by the Plaintiff against the concurrent findings rendered in Regular Civil Appeal No. 97 of 2013 by the first Appellate Court on 15th April, 2019 arising out of judgment and decree dated 8th ...
The concurrent findings of the Courts below are based on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and cannot be said to be perverse.
Procedural History
The appellants filed a suit for declaration of ownership and injunction which was dismissed by the trial court. The first appellate court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 97 of 2013 confirmed the dismissal on 15th April, 2019. The appellants then filed the present Second Appeal No. 289 of 2020 before the Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
