Case Note & Summary
The case involves a dispute over a flat in Pune. The plaintiff, Nanda Madhukar Yene, claimed she purchased the suit flat and obtained a registered Deed of Apartment. She was in exclusive possession. Her son, Nitin Madhukar Yene (defendant no.1), and Madhukar Baburao Savle (defendant no.2/appellant) were allegedly interfering with her possession. The plaintiff filed a suit for possession and injunction. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court allowed the appeal, directing the appellant to hand over possession. The appellant filed a second appeal under Section 100 CPC. The High Court examined whether any substantial question of law arose. It found that the first appellate court had correctly appreciated the evidence, including the registered deed, and that the appellant's claim based on an unregistered agreement was not credible. The court held that the findings of fact were not perverse and no substantial question of law was involved. The second appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to vacate the suit flat within eight weeks.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - The court held that the second appeal does not raise any substantial question of law as the findings of fact by the first appellate court were based on evidence and not perverse. The appellant failed to show any error of law or jurisdiction. (Paras 1-10) B) Property Law - Title and Possession - Registered Deed vs. Unregistered Agreement - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 54 - The plaintiff's title based on a registered Deed of Apartment was upheld over the appellant's claim under an unregistered agreement. The court held that a registered document confers better title and possession must follow title. (Paras 3-8) C) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 101 - The appellant, claiming title through an unregistered agreement, failed to discharge the burden of proof. The court held that the plaintiff's registered document shifted the burden to the appellant, which was not discharged. (Paras 5-7)
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 findings of the first appellate court.
Final Decision
Second appeal dismissed. The appellant is directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit flat to the plaintiff within eight weeks from the date of the order. The appellant is restrained from alienating or creating third party interest in the suit property.
Law Points
- Section 100 CPC
- second appeal only on substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact not interfered with
- registered document prevails over unregistered agreement
- burden of proof on party claiming title
- possession follows title.
