Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Madhusudan Vishwanath Mule, filed a second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge Junior Division at Malkapur dated 23.4.1998 in Regular Civil Suit No.44 of 1995, which was confirmed by the Ad hoc Additional District Judge at Buldana on 13.3.2003 in Regular Civil Appeal No.67 of 1998. Both lower courts dismissed the appellant's suit for partition, possession, declaration, and mesne profit. The appellant claimed that the suit property was joint family property and sought partition. The respondents, who are the appellant's brothers and their legal heirs, contested the suit. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the property was not joint family property and that the suit was barred by limitation. The first appellate court affirmed this decision. In the second appeal, the appellant argued that the lower courts erred in their findings. However, the High Court, after hearing the counsel for the appellant and noting that no one appeared for the respondents, found that no substantial question of law arose. The court observed that the findings of fact by both courts below were concurrent and based on proper appreciation of evidence. The appellant failed to demonstrate any perversity or error of law warranting interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court held that the second appeal does not involve any substantial question of law as the findings of fact recorded by both courts below are concurrent and based on appreciation of evidence. The appellant failed to show any perversity or error of law. (Paras 1-5) B) Hindu Law - Partition - Joint Family Property - Limitation - The suit for partition was dismissed on the ground that the property was not joint family property and the claim was barred by limitation. The concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and first appellate court were upheld. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeal involves any substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
Second appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- limitation
- partition suit
- joint family property
