Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to two second appeals filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, arising from a property dispute. The appellants, Avinash Uttam Kadam in one appeal and Jayshree Suresh Pai and Suresh Gopal Pai in the other, challenged the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court. The suits were for declaration and injunction concerning immovable property. The trial court had decreed the suit in favor of the respondents, and the first appellate court affirmed that decree. In the second appeals, the appellants contended that the findings of the courts below were perverse and based on misappreciation of evidence. The High Court, after hearing the parties, observed that the scope of a second appeal under Section 100 CPC is limited to substantial questions of law. The court noted that the findings of fact recorded by the lower appellate court were based on proper appreciation of evidence and there was no perversity. The court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. Consequently, both second appeals were dismissed, and the civil applications were disposed of. The court did not interfere with the concurrent findings, thereby upholding the decree in favor of the respondents.
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 can only interfere if there is a substantial question of law. Concurrent findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence cannot be re-appreciated unless perversity is shown. The appeals were dismissed as no substantial question of law arose. (Paras 1-3)
B) Property Law - Suit for Declaration and Injunction - Concurrent Findings - The appellants challenged the concurrent findings of the courts below regarding title and possession of the suit property. The High Court found no perversity in the findings and dismissed the appeals. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeals involve any substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, particularly when the lower appellate court has affirmed the findings of the trial court based on appreciation of evidence.
Final Decision
Both second appeals are dismissed. The civil applications are disposed of. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- perversity
- appreciation of evidence
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (12) 132
SECOND APPEAL (ST.) NO.30922 OF 2015 along with CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1789 OF 2015; SECOND APPEAL (ST.) NO.31310 OF 2015 along with CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1883 OF 2015; SECOND APPEAL (ST.) NO.31398 OF 2015 along with CIVIL APPLICATION (ST.) NO.31400 OF 2015
Avinash Uttam Kadam (in SA/30922/2015); Jayshree Suresh Pai and Suresh Gopal Pai (in SA/31310/2015)
Smt. Hajira Begum Nisar Ahmad, Nisar Ahmad Mukhtar Ahmad, Mohamad Ismail Jalal Khan, Taslim Construction through its Proprietor Abdul Matwan Khan
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeals under Section 100 CPC against concurrent findings in a suit for declaration and injunction concerning immovable property.
Remedy Sought
The appellants sought to set aside the concurrent decrees of the trial court and first appellate court which dismissed their claims.
Filing Reason
The appellants challenged the concurrent findings of the courts below on the ground that they were perverse and based on misappreciation of evidence.
Previous Decisions
The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondents; the first appellate court affirmed that decree.
Issues
Whether the second appeals involve any substantial question of law as required under Section 100 CPC.
Whether the concurrent findings of fact are perverse warranting interference in second appeal.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellants argued that the findings of the courts below were perverse and based on misappreciation of evidence.
The 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 High Court can only interfere if there is a substantial question of law. Concurrent findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence cannot be re-appreciated unless perversity is shown. As no substantial question of law arose, the appeals were dismissed.
Judgment Excerpts
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. Perused the impugned judgment and order. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the findings recorded by the lower appellate court are perverse and based on misappreciation of evidence.
Considering the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the second appeal can be entertained only if a substantial question of law is involved.
In the present case, the lower appellate court has recorded concurrent findings of fact. The findings are based on appreciation of evidence. No perversity is pointed out. Hence, no substantial question of law arises. The second appeals are dismissed.
Procedural History
The appellants filed suits for declaration and injunction in the trial court, which were dismissed. The first appeals before the District Court were also dismissed. Hence, the present second appeals under Section 100 CPC were filed before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
