Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, legal heirs of Yashwant Anant Fadte, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and decree dated 30/09/2013 passed by the District Judge, North Goa, Panaji, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 32/2012, which confirmed the judgment and decree dated 30/04/2012 of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, in Regular Civil Suit No. 32/2008. The suit was filed by the original plaintiff, Shankar Raghu Fadte (since deceased, represented by respondents), against the petitioners for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of a property described in the plaint. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the plaintiff had proved his title over the suit property and that the defendants (petitioners) had failed to prove their adverse possession. The first appellate court dismissed the appeal, confirming the trial court's findings. The petitioners then approached the High Court under Article 227, contending that the courts below had erred in appreciating the evidence, particularly in admitting certified copies of documents as secondary evidence without proper foundation, and that the suit was barred by limitation. The High Court examined the scope of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, noting that it does not act as a court of appeal and cannot reappreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The court found that the trial court had properly admitted certified copies of sale deeds and other documents under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and that these documents carried a presumption of genuineness under Section 79 of the Act. The court also held that the suit was filed within limitation as the plaintiff's title was subsisting and the defendants failed to prove adverse possession. The High Court further noted that the applications for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and for amendment of pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC were rightly rejected by the appellate court. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the concurrent findings of fact.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227 - Scope of Interference - Concurrent Findings of Fact - The High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India does not act as a court of appeal and cannot reappreciate evidence to substitute its own findings unless the findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or suffer from jurisdictional error. - Held that the petition challenging concurrent findings of fact in a suit for declaration and injunction was dismissed as no perversity was shown. (Paras 1-20) B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 65 - Secondary Evidence - Certified Copies - Presumption under Section 79 - Certified copies of public documents are admissible as secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and carry a presumption of genuineness under Section 79 of the Act. - Held that the trial court rightly admitted certified copies of sale deeds and other documents, and the appellate court correctly upheld that finding. (Paras 10-15) C) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 65 - Suit for Possession Based on Title - Adverse Possession - Burden of Proof - In a suit for possession based on title, the plaintiff must prove title within 12 years of the suit; the defendant pleading adverse possession must prove ouster and hostile possession for over 12 years. - Held that the suit was filed within limitation as the plaintiff's title was subsisting and the defendant failed to prove adverse possession. (Paras 16-18) D) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 41 Rule 27 - Additional Evidence in Appeal - The appellate court may admit additional evidence only if the conditions of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC are satisfied, such as when the evidence was not within the party's knowledge or could not be produced despite due diligence. - Held that the application for additional evidence was rightly rejected as the documents were available earlier and no diligence was shown. (Para 19) E) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 6 Rule 17 - Amendment of Pleadings After Trial - Amendment of pleadings after conclusion of trial is not permissible as it would cause prejudice to the other side and change the nature of the case. - Held that the application for amendment was rightly rejected as it was filed after trial and sought to introduce a new case. (Para 20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and first appellate court in a suit for declaration and injunction, particularly when the findings are based on appreciation of evidence and are not perverse.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court. The court held that there was no perversity in the findings and that the petition under Article 227 was without merit.
Law Points
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India
- scope of supervisory jurisdiction
- concurrent findings of fact
- perversity
- reappreciation of evidence
- limitation for filing suit
- adverse possession
- burden of proof
- Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act
- 1872
- secondary evidence
- certified copies
- presumption under Section 79 of the Indian Evidence Act
- Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act
- presumption of regularity of official acts
- Order 41 Rule 27 CPC
- additional evidence in appeal
- Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
- amendment of pleadings after trial.
