Case Note & Summary
The present Second Appeal was filed by the original plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 11.04.2025 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Junagadh in Regular Civil Appeal No. 81 of 2018, which upheld the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2018 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh in Regular Civil Suit No. 220 of 2012. The plaintiffs claimed ownership and possession of residential block Nos. 14 and 15 of Madhuvan Cooperative Housing Society Limited, purchased via sale deeds dated 03.07.1997 and 13.08.2010. They alleged that the defendant, through coercive efforts and threats, attempted to get the plot vacated and issued a notice dated 07.07.2010 alleging an oral agreement for plot No. 15. The plaintiffs denied the oral agreement and filed a suit for permanent injunction. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession and title over the suit property. The lower appellate court confirmed this finding. In the second appeal, the High Court examined whether any substantial question of law arose. The court noted that the plaintiffs did not produce any documentary evidence such as revenue records or sale deeds to prove possession. The oral evidence of the plaintiffs' witnesses was contradictory and unreliable. The court held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless perverse, and no perversity was found. The appeal was dismissed, and the civil application for stay was also disposed of.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - The High Court in a second appeal can only interfere if there is a substantial question of law. Concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed unless perverse or based on no evidence. The court found no perversity in the findings of the courts below that the plaintiffs failed to prove possession and title over the suit property. (Paras 1, 10-13) B) Property Law - Suit for Injunction - Burden of Proof - Possession and Title - In a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff must prove possession and title over the suit property. The plaintiffs failed to produce any documentary evidence such as revenue records or sale deeds to establish their possession. The oral evidence was found to be unreliable. (Paras 7-9) C) Evidence Act - Appreciation of Evidence - Contradictory Testimony - The plaintiffs' witnesses gave contradictory statements regarding possession. The trial court and appellate court rightly disbelieved the plaintiffs' case. The High Court upheld the concurrent findings. (Paras 8-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court is perverse and suffers from any substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The Second Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court dated 11.04.2025 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 81 of 2018 is confirmed. The civil application for stay also stands disposed of.
Law Points
- Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC
- Substantial Question of Law
- Concurrent Findings of Fact
- Interference Limited to Perversity
- Burden of Proof
- Possession and Title
