Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal filed by Navinchand Khushalchand Mutha against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court in a suit for declaration and injunction concerning agricultural land. The appellant challenged the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court, which had dismissed his suit. The primary contention was that a sale deed executed in favor of the original plaintiff was void as it contravened Section 7 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, which prohibits transfer of land in excess of the ceiling limit. The appellant argued that the sale deed was therefore null and void and that the courts below erred in not considering this legal bar. The respondents, legal representatives of the deceased original plaintiff, supported the concurrent findings. The High Court, after hearing counsel, noted that the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is confined to substantial questions of law. The court observed that the appellant had not raised the issue of the sale deed being void under the Ceiling Act in the pleadings or before the lower courts. The findings of fact recorded by both courts were concurrent and based on evidence. The court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration and dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court held that a second appeal lies only on a substantial question of law and not on re-appreciation of evidence. Concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts cannot be interfered with unless perverse or based on no evidence. (Paras 1-4) B) Property Law - Void Sale Deed - Section 7 Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 - The appellant contended that the sale deed was void for non-compliance with Section 7 of the Act. The court found that the issue was not raised in the pleadings or before the lower courts and no substantial question of law arose. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, raises any substantial question of law, particularly regarding the validity of a sale deed allegedly in contravention of Section 7 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal with no order as to costs, holding that no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- concurrent findings of fact
- substantial question of law
- void sale deed
- Section 7 Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act
- 1961
