Case Note & Summary
The appellant, original defendant No. 1, filed a second appeal against the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the first appellate court in a partition suit. The suit was filed by respondent No. 1, Girish Madan, seeking partition and separate possession of his 3/7th share in property bearing C.T.S. No. 3349, situated in Ahmednagar city. The plaintiff claimed to have purchased the share from the original owners. The trial court decreed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed the decree. The appellant, who was a tenant in the property, contended that the sale deed was not valid and that he had acquired title by adverse possession. The High Court, in the second appeal, examined whether any substantial question of law arose. The court noted that the findings of fact by the lower courts were concurrent and based on evidence. The sale deed was proved, and the plaintiff's title as co-owner was established. The appellant's claim of adverse possession was not supported by evidence, as his possession as a tenant was not adverse to the co-owners. The court held that no substantial question of law was involved and dismissed the appeal. The court also disposed of the pending civil application.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - Concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in second appeal unless perverse or based on no evidence - The court held that the findings of the trial court and first appellate court regarding the execution of the sale deed and the plaintiff's 3/7th share were based on evidence and not perverse (Paras 1-10). B) Property Law - Partition - Co-owner's Share - Sale Deed - Plaintiff purchased 3/7th share from co-owners - The court upheld the concurrent findings that the sale deed was validly executed and the plaintiff became a co-owner entitled to partition (Paras 2-8). C) Property Law - Possession - Tenant - Co-owner - Defendant's possession as tenant under one co-owner does not become adverse to other co-owners - The court held that the defendant's possession was not hostile to the plaintiff's title (Paras 5-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeal involves any substantial question of law warranting interference with concurrent findings of fact regarding the validity of the sale deed and the plaintiff's share in the suit property.
Final Decision
The second appeal is dismissed. The concurrent findings of the lower courts are confirmed. Civil Application No. 8889 of 2016 is disposed of.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Partition suit
- Sale deed
- Co-owner
- Tenant
- Adverse possession
- Substantial question of law
- Second appeal
