Case Note & Summary
The case involves a property dispute over Gut No. 152, Old Survey No. 76, admeasuring 5H 36R (13 acres) at Village Pimpri, Taluka Khurd, District Aurangabad. The plaintiffs (respondents herein) are sisters of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, daughters of Umar Khan, who inherited the property from his father Jugan Khan. Umar Khan died intestate on 15.08.2011. The plaintiffs claimed that during his lifetime, Umar Khan handed over the property to defendants Nos. 1 and 2 for better cultivation, but defendants Nos. 2 and 3 illegally recorded their names in revenue records based on a partition deed dated 16.12.1985. Defendant No. 1 transferred his share to defendants Nos. 3 and 4, and defendant No. 2 sold a portion to Nawab Pathan and Kalyan Sheshrao, later repurchasing part. Defendant No. 5 purchased 2 acres from defendant No. 2 and 11 gunthas from Nawab, and also 11 gunthas from Umar Khan. The plaintiffs sought a share in 91 gunthas of land. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed the dismissal. The appellant (defendant No. 5) filed a second appeal. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose, as the concurrent findings were based on evidence and not perverse. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - The High Court dismissed the second appeal as no substantial question of law arose; the concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and first appellate court were based on proper appreciation of evidence and not perverse. (Paras 1-5)
B) Property Law - Partition - Adverse Possession - Limitation - The plaintiffs claimed share in ancestral property; defendants set up adverse possession and partition. The courts below held that the plaintiffs' suit was barred by limitation and that the defendants had perfected title by adverse possession. (Paras 2-4)
C) Civil Procedure - Res Judicata - The issue of partition had been previously adjudicated and the plaintiffs were estopped from reagitating the same. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 raises any substantial question of law regarding the concurrent findings of the courts below on the issues of partition, adverse possession, and limitation.
Final Decision
The Second Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending civil application also disposed of.
Law Points
- Adverse possession
- Partition
- Res judicata
- Limitation
- Burden of proof
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
Case Details
Second Appeal No. 473 of 2025 with Civil Application No. 13907 of 2025
Mr. V. P. Narwade (for Appellant), Mr. V. D. Sapkal (Senior Advocate for Respondents), Ms. Priyanaka Kale (for Respondents), Mr. Arvind R. Kawade (for Respondent No.1)
Dwarkabai w/o Dynaneshwar Pawar
Maimunabee w/o Shaikh Noor, Saminabee w/o Sayyed Rashid, Safiyabee w/o Sayyed Musa, Maheboobbee w/o Shaikh Samad, Jamil Khan s/o Umar Khan, Khalil Khan s/o Umar Khan, Ajijabee w/o Jamil Khan, Noorjaha Bano d/o Mahetab Shaikh
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeal against concurrent judgments in a civil suit for partition and declaration of title.
Remedy Sought
The appellant (defendant No.5) sought to challenge the judgments of the trial court and first appellate court which dismissed the plaintiffs' suit.
Filing Reason
The appellant claimed that the courts below erred in law and fact in dismissing the suit.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Civil Judge Junior Division, Aurangabad) dismissed Regular Civil Suit No.29/2016 on 17.03.2022. The first appellate court (District Court, Aurangabad) dismissed Regular Civil Appeal No.136/2022 on 27.11.2025.
Issues
Whether the second appeal raises any substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC?
Whether the concurrent findings of fact are perverse or based on no evidence?
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant argued that the courts below misappreciated the evidence and that the findings were perverse.
The respondents supported the concurrent findings and argued that no substantial question of law arose.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises in a second appeal when the concurrent findings of fact are based on proper appreciation of evidence and are not perverse. The court declined to interfere with the findings on partition, adverse possession, and limitation.
Judgment Excerpts
The Second Appeal is filed by the Appellant challenging the judgment dated 17.03.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Aurangabad in Regular Civil Suit No.29/2016 as well as the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2025 passed by the learned District Court, Aurangabad in Regular Civil Appeal No.136/2022.
Facts of the case are as under :
Procedural History
The plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No.29/2016 for partition and declaration. The trial court dismissed the suit on 17.03.2022. The plaintiffs appealed in Regular Civil Appeal No.136/2022, which was dismissed on 27.11.2025. The defendant No.5 filed the present Second Appeal No.473/2025, which was dismissed on 20.04.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
