Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Dilipkumar Bherumal Kucheriya, filed a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) against the judgment and order of the Principal District Judge, Dhule, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 182/2001, which had dismissed his appeal against the decree of the trial court in Special Civil Suit No. 69/1995. The suit was filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 5 (Subhashchandra Nemichand Kucheriya and others) seeking possession of the suit property from the appellant. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondents, and the first appellate court confirmed that decree. The appellant contended that the lower courts erred in their findings on title and possession. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the second appeal did not involve any substantial question of law. The court noted that both lower courts had concurrently found that the appellant failed to prove his title or adverse possession over the suit property. The High Court observed that the findings of fact were based on evidence and were not perverse. Consequently, the court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the decree for possession in favor of the respondents. The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of interference in second appeals under Section 100 CPC, which is confined to substantial questions of law and does not permit re-appreciation of evidence unless the findings are perverse.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - Concurrent Findings of Fact - 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 demonstrate any perversity or error of law in the judgments of the trial court and first appellate court. (Para 1-3) B) Property Law - Title and Possession - Burden of Proof - Adverse Possession - The plaintiff-respondents sought possession based on title. The appellant-defendant claimed adverse possession but failed to prove the same. The courts below correctly held that the appellant did not establish title or adverse possession, and the decree for possession in favor of the respondents was justified. (Para 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) raises any substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below regarding title and possession of the suit property.
Final Decision
The Second Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree of the first appellate court confirming the trial court's decree for possession in favor of the respondents are upheld.
Law Points
- Second appeal
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- interference limited to perversity
- adverse possession
- burden of proof
- title suit
- possession decree
