Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a suit for possession and mesne profits filed by the original plaintiff (now represented by respondents) against the original defendants (now appellants) in respect of suit property. The trial court in Special Civil Suit No. 183 of 1987 decreed the suit on 28.03.1991, directing the defendants to deliver possession and pay Rs.9,000/- as past mesne profits, with an enquiry under Order XX Rule 12 CPC for future mesne profits. The defendants filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 125 of 1991, and another party filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 127 of 1991, both of which were dismissed by the lower appellate court, confirming the trial court's decree. The appellants then filed the present second appeal under Section 100 CPC. The High Court, after hearing the appellants' counsel, found that the findings of fact recorded by both courts below were concurrent and based on proper appreciation of evidence. The court noted that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, as the appeal essentially sought re-appreciation of evidence, which is not permissible in a second appeal. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed, upholding the concurrent decrees for possession and mesne profits.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court examined whether the second appeal raised any substantial question of law. Held that the findings of fact recorded by both courts below were concurrent and based on evidence, and no substantial question of law arose for consideration. (Paras 1-3) B) Property Law - Possession and Mesne Profits - Order XX Rule 12 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The trial court decreed recovery of possession and past mesne profits of Rs.9,000/- with an enquiry under Order XX Rule 12 CPC. The lower appellate court confirmed the decree. Held that the concurrent findings did not warrant interference in second appeal. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeal involves any substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below.
Final Decision
Second Appeal No. 184 of 1995 is dismissed. The concurrent decrees for possession and mesne profits passed by the trial court and confirmed by the lower appellate court are upheld.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Substantial question of law
- Order XX Rule 12 CPC
- Mesne profits
- Possession suit
