Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Leelavati Baburao Chaudhari, filed a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Jalgaon, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 82 of 2013, which confirmed the dismissal of her suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, in Regular Civil Suit No. 42 of 2011. The appellant claimed to be the owner and in possession of the suit property, but the respondents contested her title. The trial court, after evaluating the evidence, dismissed the suit, holding that the appellant failed to prove her ownership. The first appellate court affirmed this finding. In the second appeal, the High Court examined whether any substantial question of law arose. The court noted that the findings of fact recorded by both lower courts were concurrent and based on proper appreciation of evidence. The appellant could not point out any perversity or illegality in the findings. The High Court held that no substantial question of law was involved and dismissed the appeal, upholding the concurrent findings.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court held that a second appeal lies only on a substantial question of law and not on re-appreciation of evidence. Concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and first appellate court cannot be disturbed unless shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. The appellant failed to demonstrate any perversity or error of law. (Paras 1-10) B) Property Law - Suit for Declaration and Injunction - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff must prove her title and possession over the suit property. In the present case, the plaintiff failed to adduce sufficient evidence to establish her ownership. The courts below rightly dismissed the suit. (Paras 5-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeal involves any substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below.
Final Decision
Second Appeal dismissed. No substantial question of law involved. Concurrent findings of fact upheld.
Law Points
- Second appeal limited to substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact not interfered with unless perverse
- burden of proof on plaintiff to establish title
- appreciation of evidence by trial court and first appellate court binding in second appeal
