Case Note & Summary
The case involves two second appeals arising from a property dispute. The appellants, Rambhau Maroti Fating and others, and M/s L.G. Developers & Builders, challenged the judgment and decree dated 4/11/2009 passed by the 1st Adhoc District Judge, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No.147/2008. The original suit was filed by Vasant Bulaji Fating (respondent no.1) seeking declaration of title and injunction in respect of certain agricultural land. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the lower appellate court reversed the decree and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. The appellants then filed second appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court framed the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the lower appellate court erred in reversing the trial court's judgment without considering the evidence properly? (ii) Whether the findings of the lower appellate court are perverse? (iii) Whether the suit was barred by limitation? (iv) Whether the plaintiff proved his title by adverse possession? After hearing the parties, the High Court held that the lower appellate court had appreciated the evidence in detail and its findings were not perverse. The court noted that the plaintiff had failed to prove his title by adverse possession and that the suit was not barred by limitation. The High Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose and dismissed both appeals, confirming the decree of the lower appellate court.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court reiterated that in a second appeal, the High Court can interfere only if there is a substantial question of law. Concurrent findings of fact, unless perverse or based on no evidence, cannot be disturbed. The appeals were dismissed as no substantial question of law arose. (Paras 1-41) B) Property Law - Sale Deed - Validity - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The dispute pertained to the validity of a sale deed executed by the original owner in favor of the appellants. The courts below concurrently held that the sale deed was not proved to be genuine and that the appellants failed to establish their title. The High Court upheld these findings. (Paras 2-30) C) Limitation - Adverse Possession - Limitation Act, 1963 - The plaintiff claimed title by adverse possession, but the courts below found that the plaintiff failed to prove adverse possession for the statutory period. The High Court affirmed that the findings on limitation and adverse possession were based on evidence. (Paras 31-35)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeals involve any substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, particularly when the findings of fact recorded by the lower appellate court are concurrent and based on appreciation of evidence.
Final Decision
Both second appeals are dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 4/11/2009 passed by the 1st Adhoc District Judge, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No.147/2008 is confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- perversity
- appreciation of evidence
- limitation
- adverse possession
- sale deed validity
