Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a Second Appeal filed by the original defendants (appellants) against the judgment and order dated 7.4.2007 passed by the Principal District Judge, Buldana, in Regular Civil Appeal No.35 of 2005, which dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decree of permanent injunction granted by the trial court in Regular Civil Suit No.224 of 1996. The suit was instituted on 30.12.1996 by the respondents (original plaintiffs) seeking permanent injunction restraining the appellants from obstructing their possession over suit land Gat No.38, admeasuring 9 H. 99 R., situated at village Pen Takli, Taluka Mehkar, District Buldana. The plaintiffs claimed ownership and possession based on revenue records and a prior judgment in Regular Civil Suit No.224 of 1996 which had become final. The defendants claimed possession on the basis of a Thoka Patrak (tenancy agreement) and an agreement of sale executed by respondent no.3 in favour of appellant nos.1 and 3. The trial court decreed the suit, and the first appellate court dismissed the appeal. In the Second Appeal, the High Court examined whether any substantial question of law arose. The court noted that the findings of fact recorded by the courts below were based on evidence, including revenue entries showing the plaintiffs' names and the prior adjudication. The defendants' claim of tenancy was not proved as they failed to examine attesting witnesses or the scribe, and the documents were unregistered. The court also observed that the defendants' stand in prior litigation was inconsistent with their claim of tenancy. The High Court held that no substantial question of law was involved and dismissed the Second Appeal, upholding the concurrent findings.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The High Court held that the Second Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law as the findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the first appellate court were based on proper appreciation of evidence, including revenue records and prior adjudication, and were not perverse. The concurrent findings regarding possession and ownership of the suit land were upheld. (Paras 1-10) B) Property Law - Permanent Injunction - Possession and Ownership - The plaintiffs sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing their possession over suit land Gat No.38. The courts below decreed the suit based on evidence showing the plaintiffs' names in revenue records and a prior judgment in Regular Civil Suit No. 224/1996 which had become final. The defendants' claim of tenancy and agreement of sale was not proved. (Paras 2-9) C) Evidence - Tenancy and Agreement of Sale - Burden of Proof - The defendants failed to prove the alleged Thoka Patrak (tenancy agreement) and agreement of sale. The courts below noted that the defendants did not examine the attesting witnesses or the scribe of the documents, and the documents were not registered. The claim of tenancy was also inconsistent with the defendants' earlier stand in prior litigation. (Paras 5-8)
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. The judgment and order dated 7.4.2007 passed by the Principal District Judge, Buldana in Regular Civil Appeal No.35 of 2005 is confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Permanent injunction
- possession
- ownership
- tenancy
- agreement of sale
- concurrent findings
- second appeal
- substantial question of law
- Section 100 CPC
- evidence
- revenue records
- prior adjudication
