Case Note & Summary
The case involves two second appeals arising from a family property dispute between a father, Vyankatrao Kawane, and his three sons: Wamanrao, Atmaram, and Narayan. The sons filed separate suits claiming title and possession based on an alleged partition deed dated 11.04.1976. Narayan filed Regular Civil Suit No. 553 of 1995 seeking possession based on title, which was dismissed on 20.02.2001. His appeal (Regular Civil Appeal No. 72 of 2001) was also dismissed on 31.07.2002, leading to Second Appeal No. 491 of 2002. Wamanrao filed Regular Civil Suit No. 9 of 1996 for declaration of title, which was dismissed on 06.03.1998. His appeal (Regular Civil Appeal No. 82 of 1999) was dismissed by the lower appellate court on 31.07.2002, leading to Second Appeal No. 483 of 2002. The core legal issue was whether the partition deed of 1976 was genuine and whether the sons had established their title. The courts below concurrently held that the partition deed was not proved as required by law, as the plaintiffs failed to examine the attesting witnesses or prove the document's execution. The appellants argued that the lower courts erred in not accepting the partition deed. The High Court, per Justice R. K. Deshpande, found no substantial question of law involved, as the findings were based on appreciation of evidence and were concurrent. The court noted that the burden of proof lay on the plaintiffs to prove the deed, which they failed to discharge. Consequently, both second appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - The court held that the appeals do not involve any substantial question of law as the findings of fact by the courts below are concurrent and based on appreciation of evidence. The appellants failed to prove the partition deed of 1976 as genuine. (Paras 1-5) B) Evidence Act - Burden of Proof - Partition Deed - Sections 68, 69 - The plaintiffs, claiming title based on an unregistered partition deed, failed to discharge the burden of proving its execution and attestation. The courts below rightly held that the deed was not proved. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeals raise any substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
Both second appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second appeal limited to substantial questions of law
- concurrent findings of fact not interfered with
- burden of proof on plaintiff to prove title
- unregistered partition deed requires proof of execution and attestation
