Bombay High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Property Suit — Concurrent Findings of Fact Not Disturbed Under Section 100 CPC. Court holds that no substantial question of law arises when findings are based on appreciation of evidence and not perverse.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Prosecution
  • 97
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The present second appeal arises from a suit for possession filed by the respondents (original plaintiffs) against the appellants (original defendants). The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, and the first appellate court (Regular Civil Appeal No. 40/1999) confirmed the decree. Aggrieved, the defendants 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 involve any substantial question of law. The court observed that the findings of fact recorded by the courts below were concurrent and based on proper appreciation of evidence. The appellants could not demonstrate any perversity or error of law in the impugned judgment. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the decree for possession in favor of the plaintiffs. The court also disposed of the accompanying civil application.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court reiterated that in a second appeal, interference is permissible only if there is a substantial question of law. Concurrent findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence cannot be disturbed unless shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. (Para 1-2)

B) Property Law - Suit for Possession - Burden of Proof - The plaintiffs claimed possession based on title. The trial court and first appellate court concurrently found that the plaintiffs proved their title and possession. The appellants failed to show any perversity or error of law in the findings. (Para 1-2)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the second appeal involves any substantial question of law warranting interference with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the second appeal, finding no substantial question of law. The judgment and decree of the first appellate court were confirmed. The civil application was also disposed of.

Law Points

  • Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
  • substantial question of law
  • concurrent findings of fact
  • perversity
  • appreciation of evidence
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2015 LawText (BOM) (10) 31

Second Appeal No. 1408 of 2005 with Civil Application No. 9083 of 2005

2015-10-20

T.V. Nalawade, J.

Mr. S.K. Shinde for appellants, Mr. V.D. Hon for respondent Nos. 1 to 8

Smt. Anusaya W/o Ramkrishna Sathe (since deceased through L.Rs.) and others

Smt. Surekha Shashikant Sathe and others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Second appeal against concurrent decrees for possession in a property suit.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought to set aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate court which confirmed the trial court's decree for possession in favor of the respondents.

Filing Reason

Appellants challenged the concurrent findings of fact on the ground that they were perverse and not based on evidence.

Previous Decisions

Trial court decreed the suit for possession in favor of the plaintiffs; first appellate court (Regular Civil Appeal No. 40/1999) confirmed the decree.

Issues

Whether the second appeal involves any substantial question of law.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the findings of the courts below were perverse and not based on evidence. Respondents supported the concurrent findings and submitted that no substantial question of law arises.

Ratio Decidendi

In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the court can interfere only if there is a substantial question of law. Concurrent findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence cannot be disturbed unless shown to be perverse or based on no evidence.

Judgment Excerpts

The appeal is filed against judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No. 40/1999... The court found that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal.

Procedural History

The suit was originally filed by the respondents (plaintiffs) for possession. The trial court decreed the suit. The appellants (defendants) filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 40/1999, which was dismissed by the 2nd Ad-hoc Additional District Judge. The defendants then filed the present second appeal under Section 100 CPC.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Property Suit — Concurrent Findings of Fact Not Disturbed Under Section 100 CPC. Court holds that no substantial question of law arises when findings are based on appreciation of evidence and not pervers...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Unreliable Dying Declaration. Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside as dying declaration named 'Dalya' not appellant 'Gajraj', and prosecution failed to establish identity beyond reasonable...