Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Manilal Ratnabhai Solanki, was the unsuccessful plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession of suit land. He filed Regular Civil Suit No.16 of 2022 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kalol, seeking relief under Sections 34, 36 and 37 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. The respondents, Shankarbhai Raisinh Solanki and others, appealed. The Appellate Court reversed the trial court's decree and dismissed the suit. The appellant then filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, raising eight substantial questions of law. The High Court examined the questions and found that the Appellate Court had appreciated the evidence and recorded findings of fact. The High Court noted that the sale deed dated 27.04.2002 was found to be violative of Section 43 of the Tenancy Act and that the appellant failed to comply with Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose and dismissed the second appeal.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The High Court held that the second appeal does not involve any substantial question of law as the findings of the Appellate Court were based on appreciation of evidence and not perverse. The appeal was dismissed. (Paras 1-21) B) Specific Relief Act - Declaration of Title - Section 14 Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The Appellate Court observed that the appellant failed to comply with Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act regarding readiness and willingness to perform the contract. The High Court found no error in this observation. (Paras 4, 21) C) Tenancy Law - Sale of Agricultural Land - Section 43 Tenancy Act - The Appellate Court held that the sale deed dated 27.04.2002 was violative of Section 43 of the Tenancy Act as it was executed without prior permission. The High Court upheld this finding. (Paras 7, 21)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Appellate Court erred in reversing the trial court's decree without considering material evidence and without framing substantial questions of law.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arises. The judgment of the Appellate Court is confirmed.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- appreciation of evidence
- Section 14 Specific Relief Act
- Section 43 Tenancy Act
- Order 41 Rule 25 CPC
