Case Note & Summary
The original plaintiff, Smt. Anusayabai Bapuji Chandramore, filed Regular Civil Suit No. 1097 of 1995 seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from creating any third party interest in the suit property, Gat No. 221, admeasuring 1 hectare and 64R (formerly Survey No. 28/2A), and a declaration that the defendants' transfer of certain plots to other persons was illegal and invalid. The trial court decreed the suit on 27.03.2000, granting permanent injunction and declaring the transfers invalid. The defendants appealed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 145 of 2000, which was dismissed by the lower appellate court on 25.11.2003, confirming the decree. The defendants then filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found that the appeal did not raise any substantial question of law. The court noted that both lower courts had concurrently found in favor of the plaintiff on facts, and the defendants failed to demonstrate any perversity or error of law in those findings. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed, upholding the concurrent decrees.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court held that a second appeal lies only on substantial questions of law and not on re-appreciation of evidence. Concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeal involves any substantial question of law warranting interference with concurrent findings of fact.
Final Decision
Second appeal dismissed. Concurrent findings of fact upheld. No substantial question of law involved.
Law Points
- Second appeal limited to substantial questions of law
- concurrent findings of fact not interfered with unless perverse
- Section 100 CPC
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (07) 233
SECOND APPEAL NO. 463 of 2004
Mr. S.M.Gorwadkar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Haridas Rajendra Madhukar for appellants; Mr. Anil V. Anturkar Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Pankaj R. Thatte for respondent
Shri Tarachand Jamnadas Wagwani and Shri Nathomal Jamnadas Wagwani
Smt. Anusayabai Bapuji Chandramore
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for permanent injunction and declaration regarding suit property
Remedy Sought
Permanent injunction restraining defendants from dealing with suit property and declaration that transfers by defendants were invalid
Filing Reason
Plaintiff sought to prevent defendants from creating third party interests in suit property
Previous Decisions
Trial court decreed suit on 27.03.2000; lower appellate court confirmed decree on 25.11.2003
Issues
Whether the second appeal involves any substantial question of law?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that concurrent findings of fact were erroneous and required interference.
Respondent supported concurrent findings and argued no substantial question of law arose.
Ratio Decidendi
A second appeal under Section 100 CPC is maintainable only on substantial questions of law. Concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless perverse or based on no evidence. The appellants failed to raise any substantial question of law.
Judgment Excerpts
In Regular Civil Suit No. 1097 of 1995, the trial Court has passed a decree on 27.03.2000...
In Regular Civil Appeal No. 145 of 2000, the lower appellate Court has confirmed this decree and dismissed the appeal on 25.11.2003.
Procedural History
Regular Civil Suit No. 1097 of 1995 decreed on 27.03.2000. Regular Civil Appeal No. 145 of 2000 dismissed on 25.11.2003. Second Appeal No. 463 of 2004 filed in High Court and dismissed on 02.07.2015.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
