Case Note & Summary
The case involves a property dispute between the appellants (original defendants) and the respondents (original plaintiffs) over land in Udatare, Taluka Wai, District Satara. The plaintiffs filed Civil Suit No. 333 of 1980 seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants, claiming they were in possession and had title to the suit property. The trial court, Civil Judge, Junior Division, Wai, decreed the suit on 30.01.1988, granting the injunction. The defendants appealed to the District Court, which dismissed the appeal on 30.04.1993, affirming the trial court's findings. The defendants then filed the present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court, after hearing counsel, found that the appeal did not raise any substantial question of law. The concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding possession and title were based on evidence and were not perverse. The court noted that the appellant's counsel could not point to any legal error or perversity in the judgments. Consequently, the Second Appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court held that in a second appeal, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The appellant failed to show any perversity or error of law in the judgments of the trial court and first appellate court. (Paras 1-10)
B) Property Law - Injunction - Possession and Title - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The suit for injunction was based on prior possession and title. The courts below concurrently found that the plaintiff was in possession and had better title. The High Court upheld these findings as they were based on proper appreciation of evidence. (Paras 2-9)
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
The Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second appeal limited to substantial questions of law
- concurrent findings of fact not to be disturbed unless perverse
- Section 100 CPC
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (09) 90
Second Appeal No. 3 of 1994
Mr. P. J. Shinde for the appellants, Mrs. Pratibha Shelke i/b P. J. Thorat for the respondents
Laxman Genu Jagtap (since deceased) through legal heirs: Shrirang Laxman Jagtap, Prakash Laxman Jagtap, Sou. Kalpana Nanasaheb Nanaware, Smt. Manjula Arvind Pharande, Smt. Rukmini Laxman Jagtap (dead), Smt. Alka Anandrao Pharande
Raghunath Tatyaba Jagtap (since deceased) through legal representative Sneha Chavan, and others: Shri. Vilas Raghunath Jagtap, Shri. Satish Raghunath Jagtap, Sou. Shobha Shivaji Dudhal, Sou. Sharda Daulat Korde, Sou. Sindu Anil Karpe
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeal against concurrent judgments in a civil suit for permanent injunction.
Remedy Sought
The appellants (original defendants) sought to set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and the first appellate court granting injunction in favor of the respondents (original plaintiffs).
Filing Reason
The appellants challenged the concurrent findings of fact regarding possession and title of the suit property.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Civil Judge, Junior Division, Wai) decreed the suit on 30.01.1988. The first appellate court (District Court) dismissed the appeal on 30.04.1993, affirming the trial court's judgment.
Issues
Whether the Second Appeal raises any substantial question of law?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the lower courts erred in granting injunction without proper evidence.
Respondents supported the concurrent findings and argued no substantial question of law arose.
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 perversity or error of law.
Judgment Excerpts
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
This Second Appeal is preferred by the defendant challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 30.01.1988 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Wai in Civil Suit No. 333 of 1980 issuing injunction order.
Procedural History
The plaintiffs filed Civil Suit No. 333 of 1980 for injunction. The trial court decreed the suit on 30.01.1988. The defendants appealed to the District Court, which dismissed the appeal on 30.04.1993. The defendants then filed the present Second Appeal No. 3 of 1994 in the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
