Case Note & Summary
The present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was filed by the appellants (original plaintiffs) challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.05.2025 passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Bhavnagar, in Regular Civil Appeal No.7 of 2021. The first appellate court had dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree dated 01.01.2021 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhavnagar, in Regular Civil Suit No.435 of 2010. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, claiming to be the owners and occupiers of agricultural land bearing Survey No.219/1 paiki 4 and paiki 5, based on inheritance. The cause of action arose when the defendants (Sarpanch and Talati cum Mantri of Hathab Gram Panchayat and others) allegedly allotted the land to the District Education Officer for construction of a school, and defendant No.2 was trying to construct a house and bore-well on the land, encroaching upon the plaintiffs' possession. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the allotment was illegal and violative of principles of natural justice, and a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession. The defendants contested the suit, denying the allegations. The trial court, after considering evidence, dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title and possession. The first appellate court concurred with these findings. In the Second Appeal, the High Court examined whether any substantial question of law arose. The court noted that the concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and were not perverse. The plaintiffs could not demonstrate any error of law or jurisdiction. The High Court held that no substantial question of law was involved and dismissed the appeal. The court also disposed of the connected civil application for stay.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court examined whether the appeal involved any substantial question of law. The High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and first appellate court regarding the plaintiff's possession and title over the suit land were based on evidence and not perverse. No substantial question of law arose for consideration. (Paras 1-13) B) Property Law - Title and Possession - Inheritance - The plaintiff claimed ownership and possession of agricultural land based on inheritance. The defendants alleged that the land was allotted to the District Education Officer for school construction. The courts below found that the plaintiff failed to prove title and possession. The High Court upheld these findings as they were not shown to be perverse or contrary to law. (Paras 3-12) C) Injunction - Permanent Injunction - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with possession. The courts below held that the plaintiff did not establish possession or title. The High Court affirmed that the burden of proof was on the plaintiff, which was not discharged. (Paras 3-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, raises any substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Second Appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arose. The judgment and decree of the first appellate court were confirmed. The connected civil application for stay was also disposed of.
Law Points
- Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC
- Substantial question of law
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Interference limited to perversity
- Title based on inheritance
- Possession
- Permanent injunction
- Allotment of land by Gram Panchayat
- Principles of natural justice
