Case Note & Summary
The appellant-plaintiff, Mirabai Ramasare Pardeshi (since deceased, represented by legal representatives), filed Special Civil Suit No. 1853 of 1996 seeking a declaration that she had become the owner of the suit property based on a registered sale deed dated 28.04.1972 and for possession of the suit property. The trial court dismissed the suit by judgment and order dated 04.01.2010. The plaintiff's appeal, Civil Appeal No. 83 of 2010, was also dismissed by the lower appellate court on 15.10.2012. Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The core legal issues were whether the plaintiff had proved the execution of the sale deed and whether the suit for possession was within limitation. The appellant argued that the sale deed was registered and therefore proved, and that the suit was within time. The respondents contended that the sale deed was not executed by the owner and that the suit was barred by limitation. The High Court, per Justice R.K. Deshpande, held that the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below were based on evidence and not perverse. The trial court had found that the plaintiff failed to prove the execution of the sale deed as no attesting witness was examined and the suit for possession was barred by limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the plaintiff did not prove possession within 12 years prior to the suit. The High Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose and dismissed the second appeal.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - Concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in second appeal unless perverse or based on no evidence - The appellant-plaintiff failed to prove execution of sale deed dated 28.04.1972 and suit for possession was barred by limitation - Held that no substantial question of law arises (Paras 1-5). B) Limitation - Suit for Possession Based on Title - Article 65 of Limitation Act, 1963 - Suit filed in 1996 for possession based on sale deed of 1972 is beyond 12 years from date of possession becoming adverse - The plaintiff did not prove possession within 12 years prior to suit - Held that suit is barred by limitation (Paras 3-5). C) Evidence - Proof of Sale Deed - Execution and Attestation - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - The plaintiff failed to examine attesting witnesses or prove execution of sale deed dated 28.04.1972 - Held that the sale deed is not proved (Paras 3-5).
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 concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below.
Final Decision
The second appeal is dismissed. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below are confirmed. No substantial question of law arises.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Substantial question of law
- Section 100 CPC
- Limitation for possession based on title
- Article 65 Limitation Act
- 1963
- Burden of proof of sale deed execution
- Attestation of sale deed
- Transfer of Property Act
- 1882
