Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Hansaben w/o Jivan Bariya, filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court in a property title suit. The appellant was the original plaintiff who sought a declaration of title and injunction in respect of suit land. The trial court, by judgment and decree dated 3.4.2021, dismissed the suit. The first appellate court, by judgment and decree dated 9.3.2022, dismissed the appeal. The appellant raised several substantial questions of law, including whether a registered deed is mandatory for relinquishment of right, whether revenue entries of family settlement have evidentiary value, and whether the plaintiff is a bona fide purchaser. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The court observed that the lower courts had correctly appreciated the evidence and that the findings were not perverse. The court noted that while a registered deed is not mandatory for relinquishment, the plaintiff had failed to prove her case. The court also held that revenue entries have evidentiary value but are not conclusive. The appeal was dismissed, and the concurrent findings were upheld.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The High Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact, holding that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The court observed that the findings of the lower courts were based on appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from any perversity or illegality. (Paras 1-17) B) Property Law - Relinquishment of Right - Registered Deed - Not Mandatory - The court held that a registered deed is not mandatory for relinquishment or waiver of a right; such relinquishment can be inferred from conduct and revenue entries. The courts below erred in holding that a registered document is necessary. (Paras 10-12) C) Evidence Law - Revenue Entries - Evidentiary Value - The court held that revenue entries of family settlement or waiver of right have evidentiary value and can be relied upon to determine title, though they are not conclusive. The lower courts erred in disregarding such entries. (Paras 13-15) D) Property Law - Bona Fide Purchaser - The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish that she was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, as she had knowledge of the family settlement and revenue entries. (Paras 16-17)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the courts below erred in holding that a registered deed is mandatory for relinquishment/waiver of right; whether revenue entries of family settlement have evidentiary value; whether the plaintiff is a bona fide purchaser; whether withdrawal of previous suit by defendant No.2 affects the title dispute.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The concurrent findings of the lower courts were upheld.
Law Points
- Registered deed not mandatory for relinquishment of right
- Revenue entries have evidentiary value
- Concurrent findings of fact not interfered with under Section 100 CPC
- Withdrawal of previous suit does not create estoppel against third parties
