Case Note & Summary
The judgment involves four second appeals arising from a property dispute between Arun s/o Narayanrao Kale (original plaintiff) and the legal representatives of Kishore Maliye (original defendants). The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of ownership and injunction in respect of agricultural land. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed the dismissal. The plaintiff then filed Second Appeal Nos. 455/2023 and 457/2023, while the defendants filed Second Appeal Nos. 148/2024 and 156/2024 against certain findings. The High Court, after hearing both sides, noted that the lower appellate court had appreciated the evidence and recorded concurrent findings of fact. The court found no perversity in the findings and held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Consequently, all four second appeals were dismissed. The court also noted that the appeals were filed against the same judgment and were disposed of by a common order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court considered whether the appeals raised any substantial question of law. It held that the findings of fact by the lower appellate court were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. No substantial question of law arose for consideration. (Paras 1-10)
B) Property Law - Suit for Declaration and Injunction - Concurrent Findings - The plaintiff claimed ownership of suit property based on a sale deed. The trial court and first appellate court concurrently found that the plaintiff failed to prove title and possession. The High Court declined to interfere in second appeal. (Paras 1-10)
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.
Final Decision
All four second appeals are dismissed. The concurrent findings of the courts below are upheld.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- perversity
- appreciation of evidence
Case Details
Second Appeal No.455/2023, Second Appeal No.148/2024, Second Appeal No.457/2023, Second Appeal No.156/2024
Mr. Jaideep J. Chandurkar for appellant (in SA 455/2023 and SA 457/2023) and for respondent (in SA 148/2024 and SA 156/2024); Mrs. Dr. Renuka S. Sirpurkar for respondents (in SA 455/2023 and SA 457/2023) and for appellants (in SA 148/2024 and SA 156/2024)
Arun s/o Narayanrao Kale (in SA 455/2023 and SA 457/2023); Smt. Meena Kishor Maliye and others (in SA 148/2024 and SA 156/2024)
Sau. Meena w/o Kishore Maliye and others (in SA 455/2023 and SA 457/2023); Arun s/o Narayan Kale (in SA 148/2024 and SA 156/2024)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil second appeals against concurrent findings in a suit for declaration of ownership and injunction.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought to set aside the concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court dismissing the suit.
Filing Reason
The plaintiff claimed ownership of suit property based on a sale deed, but the courts below found that he failed to prove title and possession.
Previous Decisions
Trial court dismissed the suit; first appellate court confirmed the dismissal.
Issues
Whether the second appeals involve any substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the lower appellate court's findings were perverse and not based on evidence.
Respondents supported the concurrent findings and argued that no substantial question of law arises.
Ratio Decidendi
In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court can only interfere if there is a substantial question of law. Concurrent findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence, unless perverse, do not give rise to a substantial question of law.
Judgment Excerpts
No substantial question of law arises for consideration.
The findings of the lower appellate court are based on proper appreciation of evidence and are not perverse.
Procedural History
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction. The trial court dismissed the suit. The first appellate court confirmed the dismissal. The plaintiff filed two second appeals (SA 455/2023 and SA 457/2023) and the defendants filed two second appeals (SA 148/2024 and SA 156/2024) against the same judgment. All four appeals were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
