Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, legal representatives of the original plaintiff Joaquim D'souza, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and decree dated 30/06/2016 passed by the District Judge, North Goa, Panaji in Regular Civil Appeal No. 44/2015. The appeal had dismissed the suit filed by the original plaintiff for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction in respect of a property situated at Anjuna, Bardez-Goa. The trial court had dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove his title and possession over the suit property. The first appellate court confirmed the findings. The petitioners contended that the courts below erred in appreciating the evidence and that the plaintiff had acquired title by adverse possession. The respondents supported the concurrent findings. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. The court noted that the plaintiff had not produced any documentary evidence to prove his title or possession. The plea of adverse possession was not raised in the plaint and could not be considered. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the concurrent findings.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Concurrent Findings of Fact - Interference under Article 227 - The High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence - The trial court and first appellate court concurrently held that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title and possession over the suit property - Held that no interference is warranted (Paras 7-9). B) Property Law - Suit for Declaration and Injunction - Burden of Proof - In a suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction, the plaintiff must prove his title and possession over the suit property - The plaintiffs failed to produce any documentary evidence of title or possession - Held that the suit was rightly dismissed (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and first appellate court in a suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and first appellate court. The court held that there was no perversity or error of jurisdiction warranting interference under Article 227.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Interference under Article 227
- Suit for declaration and injunction
- Burden of proof of title
- Possession as basis for injunction
