Case Note & Summary
The case involves a property dispute between descendants of two brothers, Ramchandra Ingole and Trimbakrao Ingole, who had partitioned joint family property in 1952. The appellants, descendants of Ramchandra, filed a suit claiming that in 1957, Ramchandra and Trimbakrao jointly purchased a plot at F.S. No.42, mouza Rajapeth Bhargare, Badnera. They sought a declaration of ownership and partition. The respondents, descendants of Trimbakrao, denied the joint purchase, asserting that the property was purchased solely by Trimbakrao. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove joint purchase. The first appellate court affirmed this finding. In second appeal, the appellants argued that the concurrent findings were perverse and that the courts below ignored evidence. The High Court, per Manish Pitale J., examined the evidence and found that the plaintiffs had admitted in cross-examination that they had no documentary proof of joint purchase and that the sale deed stood in the name of Trimbakrao alone. The court held that the concurrent findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. The appeal was dismissed, and no substantial question of law arose under Section 100 CPC.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Concurrent Findings - The High Court in second appeal cannot re-appreciate evidence unless findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The court upheld concurrent findings that plaintiffs failed to prove joint purchase of suit property in 1957. (Paras 1-10)
B) Property Law - Joint Purchase - Burden of Proof - Plaintiffs claiming joint ownership must prove joint purchase and contribution. In absence of documentary evidence and in view of admissions, the claim was rejected. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below that the suit property was not jointly purchased by Ramchandra and Trimbakrao in 1957 are perverse or based on no evidence, warranting interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the courts below that the plaintiffs failed to prove joint purchase of the suit property. No substantial question of law arose under Section 100 CPC.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in second appeal unless perverse
- Burden of proof lies on plaintiff to establish joint purchase
- Section 100 CPC limits second appeal to substantial questions of law
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (03) 107
Second Appeal No.324 of 2002
Mr. R.M. Bhangde for Appellants, Mr. S.V. Purohit for Respondent Nos.3(i) to (iii) & 4
Hemant s/o Ramchandra Ingole, Jayant s/o Ramchandra Ingole, Sau. Pramilabai Sahebrao Bhujade, Sau. Aruna w/o Shridharrao Raut, Sau. Sandhya w/o Narendrarao Bhugul
Smt. Indirabai wd/o Trimbakrao Ingole (Deleted), Naresh s/o Trimbakrao Ingole, Manoharrao Trimbakrao Ingole (Dead through LR), Smt. Aruna wd/o Manoharrao Ingole, Amit Manoharrao Ingole, Ku. Asmita d/o Manoharrao Ingole, Sau. Jyoti Prakashrao Kolhe
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeal against concurrent findings dismissing suit for declaration of ownership and partition of suit property.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought declaration that suit property was jointly purchased by Ramchandra and Trimbakrao in 1957 and partition of the property.
Filing Reason
Appellants claimed that the suit property was jointly purchased by their ancestor Ramchandra and Trimbakrao, but respondents denied joint purchase and claimed sole ownership of Trimbakrao.
Previous Decisions
Trial court dismissed the suit; first appellate court affirmed dismissal.
Issues
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below that the suit property was not jointly purchased are perverse or based on no evidence.
Whether the appellants proved joint purchase of the suit property in 1957.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the concurrent findings are perverse and that the courts below ignored evidence showing joint purchase.
Respondents contended that the findings are based on proper appreciation of evidence and no substantial question of law arises.
Ratio Decidendi
In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden of proving joint purchase of the suit property.
Judgment Excerpts
The appellants herein are the unsuccessful plaintiffs who have challenged concurrent findings rendered against them by the two Courts below.
It is an admitted position that there was partition of joint family property between the aforesaid two brothers in the year 1952 and that thereafter they started residing separately.
Procedural History
The appellants filed a suit for declaration and partition in the trial court, which was dismissed. The first appellate court affirmed the dismissal. The appellants then filed the present second appeal under Section 100 CPC.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
