Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, arising from a suit for declaration of ownership and injunction filed by the original plaintiff (since deceased, represented by legal representatives) against the defendants (respondents). The suit property is agricultural land situated in Chanda, Taluka Newasa, District Ahmednagar. The plaintiff claimed title based on a sale deed dated 20th March 1956 executed by one Mahadu Dahatonde, who was the father of the parties. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants, who were his brothers and their families, had no right to the property and were interfering with his possession. The defendants contested the suit, denying the plaintiff's title and possession, and claimed that the property was ancestral and that they were in possession. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove his title and that the suit was barred by limitation. The first appellate court confirmed the dismissal. In the second appeal, the High Court framed the question whether any substantial question of law arises. The court noted that the findings of fact by the courts below were concurrent and based on evidence. The plaintiff's sale deed was not proved to have conveyed valid title as the vendor's title was not established. Moreover, the plaintiff was not in possession, and the suit for possession was filed beyond 12 years from the date of dispossession, making it barred by limitation. The High Court found no perversity or error of law in the concurrent findings and dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The High Court held that in a second appeal, the 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 findings of the trial court and first appellate court regarding title and possession. (Paras 1-10) B) Property Law - Declaration of Title - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff claimed ownership of suit land based on a sale deed of 1956, but failed to prove that the vendor had title. The courts below held that the plaintiff did not discharge the burden of proof. The High Court affirmed that the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own title, not on the weakness of the defendant's case. (Paras 5-8) C) Limitation - Suit for Possession - Adverse Possession - The suit was filed in 1992 for possession based on title, but the plaintiff was not in possession. The courts below held that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the plaintiff failed to prove possession within 12 years. The High Court upheld this finding. (Paras 6-9)
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 the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal with no order as to costs, affirming the concurrent findings of the courts below.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- concurrent findings of fact
- no substantial question of law
- limitation
- adverse possession
- burden of proof
