Case Note & Summary
The case involves a property dispute between the appellant, Ramchandra Govindrao Kottawar, and the respondents, Mrs. Dorpadabai Appasaheb Dodmani and others, over a common plot with construction admeasuring approximately 2250 sq. ft. with 750 sq. ft. construction, originally owned by one Laxman, who died on 8th August 1995. The appellant claimed to have purchased the suit plot from Lalita Joglekar, daughter of Laxman, through a registered sale deed dated 27th October 1988 for Rs. 30,000/-, but alleged that possession was not given as the respondents were temporarily inducted as licensees. The appellant filed S.C. Suit No. 397 of 1990 on 12th March 1990 for possession against the respondents, which was decreed on 8th June 1998. The respondents appealed in Civil Appeal No. 477 of 1998, which was allowed and the matter was remanded by judgment dated 29th July 2000. Meanwhile, the respondents, who were in possession, filed Special Civil Suit No. 1329 of 1990 for specific performance on 6th November 1990, which was decreed on 6th October 2003. The appellant challenged both the remand order and the decree for specific performance through Appeal from Order No. 546 of 2000 and First Appeal No. 1569 of 2003. The High Court, after hearing both sides, noted that the trial court had decreed the respondents' suit for specific performance and dismissed the appellant's suit for possession, and the appellate court had confirmed these findings. The court found no perversity or illegality in the concurrent findings of fact and dismissed both appeals with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Title and Possession - Registered Sale Deed - Specific Performance Act, 1963, Section 20 - Dispute over ownership of a plot with construction - Appellant claimed title through a registered sale deed dated 27.10.1988 from Lalita Joglekar, while respondents claimed through an agreement to sell and were in possession - Trial court decreed suit of respondents for specific performance and dismissed appellant's suit for possession - Appellate court confirmed findings - Held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in appeal unless perverse or based on no evidence (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant has established his title and right to possession over the suit property based on a registered sale deed dated 27th October 1988, and whether the respondents are entitled to specific performance of an agreement to sell.
Final Decision
Both appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Sale deed
- Possession
- Title
- Concurrent findings
- Remand
- Appeal from order
- First appeal
