Case Note & Summary
The present second appeal arises from a suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction filed by the respondents (original plaintiffs) against the appellants (original defendants) in respect of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 88/2, admeasuring 2.10 hectares, situated at Ashti, District Wardha. The plaintiffs claimed that they had purchased the suit land from one Pandharinath Mokaddam (the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants) under an oral sale and had been in possession since 1975. They also claimed that their names were mutated in the revenue records. The defendants, who were the legal heirs of Pandharinath, contested the suit, asserting that Pandharinath had sold the suit land to one Vitthalrao Mokaddam (the original defendant No.1) under a registered sale deed dated 20.6.1975, and that the plaintiffs had no right, title, or interest. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs, holding that they had proved their ownership and possession. The first appellate court confirmed the decree. Aggrieved, the defendants filed the present second appeal under Section 100 CPC. The High Court framed a substantial question of law as to whether the concurrent findings were perverse. Upon re-appreciating the evidence, the High Court found that the plaintiffs had not produced any documentary evidence of title, such as a sale deed or any document evidencing transfer of ownership. The only evidence relied upon by the plaintiffs was the revenue entries (7/12 extracts) showing their names, but those entries were not conclusive of title. The defendants, on the other hand, produced a certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 20.6.1975 executed by Pandharinath in favour of Vitthalrao. The courts below had rejected this document on the ground that the defendants did not examine the vendor or produce the original, but the High Court held that a certified copy is admissible in evidence and the failure to examine the vendor did not render the document invalid. The High Court also noted that the courts below had speculated that the sale deed might be bogus without any evidence. Consequently, the High Court held that the findings of the courts below were perverse and based on no evidence, and allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments and decrees of the courts below and dismissing the suit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - Perversity of Findings - The High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact if they are perverse, i.e., based on no evidence or misreading of evidence. In the present case, the trial court and first appellate court granted a declaration of ownership to the plaintiffs without any documentary evidence of title, and the findings were based on conjectures. Held that such findings are perverse and liable to be set aside (Paras 10-13). B) Property Law - Burden of Proof - Declaration of Ownership - The plaintiffs, who sought a declaration of ownership, bore the burden to prove their title. They failed to produce any sale deed, gift deed, or other document of title. The mere fact that their names appeared in the revenue records or that they were in possession did not establish ownership against the defendants who claimed through a registered sale deed. Held that the courts below erred in shifting the burden of proof to the defendants (Paras 7-9). C) Evidence Act - Appreciation of Evidence - Conjectures and Speculation - The courts below relied on the fact that the defendants did not examine the vendor or produce the original sale deed, but the defendants had produced a certified copy of the registered sale deed. The courts below also speculated that the sale deed might be bogus without any evidence. Held that such speculation amounts to perversity and cannot sustain a decree for declaration of ownership (Paras 11-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property are perverse and based on no evidence, and whether the High Court can interfere with such findings in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the judgments and decrees of the trial court and the first appellate court, and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs.
Law Points
- Section 100 CPC
- substantial question of law
- perversity of findings
- burden of proof of title
- appreciation of evidence
- concurrent findings of fact
- interference by High Court in second appeal
