Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Siddhivinayak Audyogik Vasahat Maryadit, a society, filed two second appeals against the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Nashik, in two separate civil appeals. The appellant had originally filed suits for possession and mesne profits against the respondents in respect of agricultural lands. The trial court dismissed the suits holding that they were not maintainable in civil court in view of the bar under Section 85 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (the Tenancy Act). The first appellate court confirmed the dismissal. The appellant then filed the present second appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The High Court, after hearing the parties, framed a substantial question of law regarding the maintainability of the suit in view of the bar under Section 85 of the Tenancy Act. The court noted that the concurrent findings of the courts below were based on evidence and were findings of fact. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration and that the second appeals were liable to be dismissed. The court observed that the relationship between the parties was that of landlord and tenant, and the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - The High Court held that a second appeal lies only on a substantial question of law and not on findings of fact. The concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court that the suit was not maintainable due to the bar under Section 85 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, were findings of fact and not open to interference. (Paras 1-10) B) Tenancy Law - Bar of Civil Suit - Section 85 of Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - The plaintiff's suit for possession and mesne profits in respect of agricultural land was held to be barred by Section 85, as the relationship between the parties was that of landlord and tenant, and the jurisdiction of the civil court was ousted. The concurrent findings of the courts below on this issue were affirmed. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, raises any substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below, particularly regarding the maintainability of the suit in view of the bar under Section 85 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
Final Decision
Both second appeals are dismissed. The concurrent findings of the courts below are confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- concurrent findings of fact
- substantial question of law
- maintainability of civil suit
- bar under Section 85 of Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act
- 1948
- jurisdiction of civil court
- tenancy rights
- possession
- mesne profits
