Bombay High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Property Suit — Concurrent Findings of Fact Not Interfered With. Suit for Possession and Mesne Profits Dismissed as Plaintiffs Failed to Prove Title and Possession.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD
  • 95
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves a Second Appeal filed by the original plaintiffs (appellants) against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Latur, dismissing their suit for possession and mesne profits. The suit property was a piece of land in Ausa, Latur. The plaintiffs claimed title and possession, but the trial court and the first appellate court concurrently found that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title and possession. The High Court, in the Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, examined whether any substantial question of law arose. The court noted that the findings of fact were concurrent and based on evidence, and no perversity was shown. The court held that the Second Appeal does not involve any substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal, confirming the concurrent findings.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court held that the Second Appeal does not involve any substantial question of law as the findings of fact recorded by the lower appellate court are concurrent and based on proper appreciation of evidence. The court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact. (Paras 1-10)

B) Property Law - Suit for Possession - Burden of Proof - Title and Possession - The plaintiffs failed to prove their title and possession over the suit property. The courts below concurrently held that the plaintiffs did not establish their case. The Second Appeal was dismissed. (Paras 1-10)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Second Appeal involves any substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Second Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree of the District Judge, Latur, are confirmed. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Second appeal
  • substantial question of law
  • concurrent findings of fact
  • interference limited to perversity
  • burden of proof
  • title
  • possession
  • mesne profits
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025:BHC-AUG:37476

Second Appeal No. 744 of 2008

0000-00-00

2025:BHC-AUG:37476

Shriram S/o Madhav More (since deceased through LRs) and others

Abdul Halid Abdul Samad Patel (since deceased through LRs) and others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Second Appeal against dismissal of suit for possession and mesne profits.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought to set aside the judgment and decree of the District Judge and restore the suit for possession and mesne profits.

Filing Reason

Appellants were aggrieved by the dismissal of their suit for possession and mesne profits by the lower appellate court.

Previous Decisions

The trial court dismissed the suit; the first appellate court confirmed the dismissal.

Issues

Whether the Second Appeal involves any substantial question of law.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the lower appellate court erred in dismissing the suit. Respondents supported the concurrent findings.

Ratio Decidendi

The Second Appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence and are not perverse. Hence, no interference is warranted under Section 100 CPC.

Judgment Excerpts

The Second Appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. The findings of fact recorded by the lower appellate court are concurrent and based on proper appreciation of evidence.

Procedural History

The plaintiffs filed a suit for possession and mesne profits which was dismissed by the trial court. The plaintiffs appealed to the District Judge, Latur, who dismissed the appeal. The plaintiffs then filed the present Second Appeal before the High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Property Suit — Concurrent Findings of Fact Not Interfered With. Suit for Possession and Mesne Profits Dismissed as Plaintiffs Failed to Prove Title and Possession.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Employer's Writ Petition in Bonus Dispute Under Amended Section 12 of Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. The court upheld the Industrial Court's finding that denial of bonus based on Rs.3,500 salary limit constitutes an unfair la...