Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Bajirao Ramchandra Shelar, filed two second appeals (Second Appeal No.494 of 1990 and Second Appeal No.495 of 1990) against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Satara, dated 30th June 1990, which dismissed his appeals and confirmed the trial court's decree dismissing his suit for declaration of ownership and injunction in respect of suit land. The appellant claimed to be the owner of the suit property based on a sale deed and alleged that the respondents were trespassers. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed the dismissal, holding that the appellant failed to prove his title and possession. In the second appeals, the appellant contended that the lower courts misappreciated the evidence and that the findings were perverse. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the concurrent findings of fact were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. The court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Accordingly, both second appeals were dismissed 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 examined whether the second appeals raised any substantial question of law. It held that the findings of fact recorded by the lower appellate court were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. No substantial question of law arose for consideration. (Paras 1-32) B) Property Law - Suit for Declaration and Injunction - Concurrent Findings - The plaintiff-appellant sought declaration of ownership and injunction in respect of suit land. Both trial court and first appellate court dismissed the suit. The High Court in second appeal upheld the concurrent findings, noting that the appellant failed to prove title and possession. (Paras 1-32)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeals involve any substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below.
Final Decision
Both second appeals dismissed with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- perversity
- appreciation of evidence
