Case Note & Summary
The case involves two second appeals arising from a property dispute between the legal representatives of Balaji Ramaiya Manthanwar (appellants) and Gulabrao Ganpatrao Bakade (respondents). The appellants, as plaintiffs, filed a suit for possession and mesne profits in respect of certain immovable property. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title and possession over the suit property. The first appellate court confirmed this finding. In second appeal, the High Court examined whether the concurrent findings of fact were perverse or based on no evidence. The court noted that the plaintiffs did not produce any documentary evidence of title, such as sale deeds or revenue records, and the oral evidence was insufficient to establish possession within 12 years of the suit. The court held that the burden of proof was on the plaintiffs to prove their case, and they failed to discharge it. Consequently, the High Court dismissed both appeals, upholding the decisions of the lower courts. The court also held that since the plaintiffs failed to prove title, they were not entitled to mesne profits.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Concurrent Findings - Interference - The High Court in second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The courts below concurrently held that the plaintiff failed to prove his title and possession over the suit property. (Paras 1-10) B) Property Law - Title and Possession - Burden of Proof - In a suit for possession based on title, the plaintiff must prove his title and that he was in possession within 12 years of the suit. The plaintiff failed to produce any documentary evidence of title or possession, and the oral evidence was insufficient. (Paras 5-8) C) Mesne Profits - Entitlement - Proof of Wrongful Possession - Mesne profits under Section 2(12) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 require proof that the defendant was in wrongful possession and the plaintiff was entitled to possession. Since the plaintiff failed to prove his title, he is not entitled to mesne profits. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff proved his title and possession over the suit property to be entitled to possession and mesne profits?
Final Decision
Both second appeals are dismissed. The judgments of the trial court and first appellate court are confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Burden of proof lies on plaintiff to prove title and possession
- Concurrent findings of fact not interfered with in second appeal unless perverse
- Mesne profits require proof of wrongful possession and entitlement
