Case Note & Summary
The respondent/plaintiff, Subhash Pundlikrao Jadhav, filed Regular Civil Suit No.212 of 2010 seeking possession of agricultural land Gat No.176 situated at Mouje Nandura (Lashkarpur), Amravati. He claimed that after retirement, he purchased the suit property from the appellant/defendant, Balu @ Balasaheb Bapurao Khawal, on 6.6.2001 via a registered sale deed and was put in possession. He mutated his name in revenue records and obtained crop loans and government aid. On 28.11.2005, the appellant made a false complaint alleging the transaction was not a sale. The trial court decreed the suit for possession on 29.11.2011. The appellant's appeal (Regular Civil Appeal No.11 of 2012) was dismissed on 29.9.2014. The appellant then filed this second appeal under Section 100 CPC. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose as the concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence, including the registered sale deed and mutation entries. The appeal was dismissed summarily.
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 failed to show any perversity or error of law in the concurrent findings that the plaintiff had title and possession based on a registered sale deed and mutation entries (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeal raises any substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below.
Final Decision
Second Appeal dismissed summarily. No substantial question of law arises. Concurrent findings of fact are not interfered with.
Law Points
- Second appeal
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- interference limited to perversity
- sale deed
- possession
- title
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (08) 130
Second Appeal No.157 of 2015
Shri M.A. Vaishnav for appellant, Shri Akshay Sudame for caveator/respondent
Balu @ Balasaheb Bapurao Khawal
Subhash Pundlikrao Jadhav
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeal against concurrent decrees for possession of agricultural land.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to set aside the concurrent decrees for possession.
Filing Reason
Appellant challenged the concurrent findings of fact that the respondent had title and possession based on a registered sale deed.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court decreed suit for possession on 29.11.2011; First Appellate Court dismissed appeal on 29.9.2014.
Issues
Whether the second appeal raises any substantial question of law?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the transaction was not a sale but something else.
Respondent relied on registered sale deed and mutation entries.
Ratio Decidendi
In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The appellant failed to demonstrate any such perversity.
Judgment Excerpts
It appears that the respondent/plaintiff had instituted Regular Civil Suit No.212 of 2010 on the basis of his title and he prayed for possession in the said suit of the agricultural land.
Thus, the decree for possession of the suit field, as granted by the Trial Court, was confirmed since the appeal was dismissed.
Procedural History
Regular Civil Suit No.212 of 2010 filed by respondent/plaintiff for possession; decreed on 29.11.2011 by 3rd Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Amravati. Appellant filed Regular Civil Appeal No.11 of 2012, dismissed on 29.9.2014. Appellant then filed Second Appeal No.157 of 2015 in the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, which was dismissed on 14.8.2015.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Section 100
