The High Court dismissed a Second Appeal in a land dispute case where the appellants sought restoration of a Trial Court decree granting permanent injunction for entire agricultural land -- The First Appellate Court had partly allowed the appeal by maintaining injunction only for portion of the land -- The High Court examined whether substantial questions of law arose under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) -- The Court found that the Appellate Court had properly appreciated evidence including document Ex.107 and witness testimony -- The findings were not perverse or based on no evidence -- Since no substantial question of law was involved, the Court declined to interfere with the factual findings -- The appeal was dismissed upholding the First Appellate Court's judgment.
The High Court dismissed a Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) challenging the First Appellate Court's judgment that partly allowed the appeal and modified the permanent injunction decree -- The appellants had sought permanent injunction for agricultural land bearing Survey No.517 -- The Trial Court had granted injunction for entire 5 Acres 5 Gunthas -- The First Appellate Court maintained injunction only for 2 Acres 5 Gunthas and set aside injunction for remaining 3 Acres -- The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration -- The Appellate Court's appreciation of evidence including document Ex.107 and testimony of witness Chanchiben was within its jurisdiction -- The findings were based on proper evaluation of evidence and not perverse -- The scope of interference under Section 100 CPC is limited to substantial questions of law only -- The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
The High Court dismissed the Second Appeal -- The Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration -- The First Appellate Court's appreciation of evidence was proper and findings were not perverse -- The scope of interference under Section 100 CPC is limited to substantial questions of law only -- The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs
Citation: 2026 LawText (GUJ) (01) 3
Case Number: R/Second Appeal No. 37 of 2004
Date of Decision: 2026-01-05
Case Title: The Issue of Consideration was whether the First Appellate Court committed any error warranting interference under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) in a land dispute case involving permanent injunction
Before Judge: J. C. Doshi J.
Equivalent Citations: 2026:GUJHC:170
Advocate(s): Deceased Litigant Through Legal Heirs/Representatives, MR JV JAPEE for Appellants, MR AM PAREKH for Respondents
Appellant: Heirs L.R. of Deceased Thakarda Kodarji Viraji & Ors.
Respondent: Marwadi Champaklal Mangilal & Anr.
Nature of Litigation: Civil suit for permanent injunction regarding agricultural land
Remedy Sought: Appellants sought restoration of Trial Court decree granting permanent injunction for entire suit land
Filing Reason: Appellants challenged First Appellate Court's judgment that partly allowed appeal and modified injunction decree
Previous Decisions: Trial Court decreed suit granting permanent injunction for entire land -- First Appellate Court partly allowed appeal maintaining injunction only for portion of land
Issues: Whether substantial questions of law arose under Section 100 CPC warranting interference with First Appellate Court's judgment Whether First Appellate Court's appreciation of evidence was perverse or based on no evidence
Submissions/Arguments: Appellants contended Appellate Court erred in relying on document Ex.107 and misreading witness testimony Appellants argued Appellate Court committed substantial error in law in partly setting aside Trial Court decree Respondents submitted appeal did not involve any substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC
Ratio Decidendi: In second appeals under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or interfere with factual findings of lower courts unless they are shown to be perverse or based on no evidence -- The jurisdiction is limited to substantial questions of law only -- Appellate court's evaluation of documentary and oral evidence falls within its fact-finding domain
Judgment Excerpts: The present Second Appeal is preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the courts below were justified in holding that the defendants could prove that they are in possession of the property The learned Appellate Court, while upsetting the said decree in respect of a portion of the land, has neither recorded any cogent reasons nor demonstrated that the findings of the Trial Court were perverse or unsustainable
Procedural History: Regular Civil Suit No. 13 of 1987 filed before Civil Judge (Junior Division), Idar -- Trial Court decreed suit on 26.12.1994 -- First Appeal No. 9 of 1995 filed before District Judge, Sabarkantha -- First Appellate Court partly allowed appeal on 27.02.2004 -- Second Appeal No. 37 of 2004 filed before High Court -- Substantial questions framed on 11.09.2006 -- Judgment reserved on 17.12.2025 -- Pronounced on 05.01.2026
