Case Note & Summary
The case involves two regular second appeals filed by the appellants, Chanderakant and Suryakant, against the respondents, who are legal representatives of the original defendant. The appellants were the plaintiffs in the original suit seeking a declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of agricultural land. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed the dismissal. The appellants then filed these second appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court, after hearing the counsel, found that the courts below had concurrently held that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title and possession. The High Court noted that no substantial question of law arose for consideration and dismissed the appeals, upholding the concurrent findings.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The High Court in second appeal cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a substantial question of law. The court held that the findings of the courts below were based on appreciation of evidence and did not give rise to any substantial question of law. (Paras 1-10)
B) Property Law - Title and Possession - Burden of Proof - The plaintiffs, who sought declaration of title and injunction, failed to prove their title and possession over the suit property. The court held that the burden was on the plaintiffs to establish their case, which they failed to discharge. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court calls for interference in the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
Final Decision
Both second appeals are dismissed. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court are confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Burden of proof
- Title suit
- Concurrent findings
- Second appeal
- Substantial question of law
- Section 100 CPC
Case Details
2025 LawText (KAR) (12) 1
RSA No. 887 of 2008 C/W RSA No. 200429 of 2014
Sri. Deepak V. Barad for appellants; Sri. Sachin M. Mahajan for respondents
Chanderakant S/o Rajaram Patil and Suryakant S/o Rajaram Patil
Gyanoba S/o Mahadba Mankare (since deceased by LRs) and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of suit property
Filing Reason
Appellants claimed title and possession over the suit property, which was disputed by the respondents
Previous Decisions
Trial court dismissed the suit; first appellate court confirmed the dismissal
Issues
Whether the plaintiffs proved their title and possession over the suit property?
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below give rise to any substantial question of law?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the courts below erred in appreciating the evidence and that they had proved their title and possession.
Respondents supported the concurrent findings and argued that no substantial question of law arose.
Ratio Decidendi
In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a substantial question of law. The plaintiffs failed to prove their title and possession, and the findings of the courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence.
Judgment Excerpts
The courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their title and possession over the suit property.
No substantial question of law arises for consideration in these appeals.
Procedural History
The appellants filed a suit for declaration and injunction, which was dismissed by the trial court. The first appeal was also dismissed. The appellants then filed these second appeals under Section 100 CPC.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
