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 located in Pune. The plot, admeasuring approximately 2250 sq. ft. with 750 sq. ft. of construction, originally belonged to one Laxman, who died on 8th August 1995. His daughter, Lalita Joglekar, was the earlier owner. Both parties claimed to have purchased the suit plot from Lalita Joglekar. The appellant claimed that he entered into a registered sale deed dated 27th October 1988 with Lalita Joglekar for Rs. 30,000, but possession was not given to him because she had inducted the respondents temporarily for a fee of Rs. 500 per month. The respondents, who were in possession, claimed that they had also purchased the property from Lalita Joglekar. The appellant filed S.C. Suit No. 397 of 1990 on 12th March 1990 for possession against the respondents. The suit was decreed on 8th June 1998. The respondents preferred Civil Appeal No. 477 of 1998, which was allowed by the District Court, Pune, on 29th July 2000, and the matter was remanded back. This remand order was challenged by the appellant in Appeal from Order No. 546 of 2000. Meanwhile, the respondents filed Special Civil Suit No. 1329 of 1990 for specific performance on 6th November 1990, which was decreed on 6th October 2003. The appellant filed First Appeal No. 1569 of 2003 against that decree. Both appeals were heard together by the High Court. The High Court noted that the trial court and the first appellate court had concurrently found in favor of the respondents. The High Court found no substantial question of law or perversity in the findings and dismissed both appeals with costs of Rs. 25,000 each, payable to the Bombay High Court Legal Services Committee.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Appeal from Order - Interference with Concurrent Findings - The High Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the first appellate court in a suit for possession and a suit for specific performance, as no substantial question of law arose. (Paras 5-6) B) Property Law - Suit for Possession and Specific Performance - Rival Claims - The dispute pertained to a common plot claimed by both parties through separate sale deeds from the same vendor. The courts below concurrently found in favor of the respondents, and the High Court upheld those findings. (Paras 1-4) C) Costs - Imposition of Costs - The appeals were dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000 each, payable to the Bombay High Court Legal Services Committee, due to the frivolous nature of the litigation. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court should interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below in a property dispute involving rival claims of purchase from the same vendor.
Final Decision
Both appeals are dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000 each, payable to the Bombay High Court Legal Services Committee.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Interference by High Court
- Appeal from Order
- First Appeal
- Suit for possession
- Suit for specific performance
