Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal filed by the Union of India and other defendants against the judgment of the appellate court which declared the respondent-plaintiff, M/s Kalpana Enterprises, as the owner of Survey No.345 admeasuring 6084.7 square meters and restrained the appellants from causing obstruction to its possession without due process. The plaintiff claimed ownership through a chain of title starting from one George Duncan who mortgaged the property to Gangadharrao Chitnavis in 1891. A foreclosure decree was passed in 1894, and the property was delivered to Chitnavis. Over time, the property devolved to his legal heirs, and in 1974, a partnership firm was formed, which later became the plaintiff. The plaintiff obtained exemptions under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, and constructed a cinema theatre and office blocks. The defendants, who owned adjoining plot No.344, allegedly interfered with possession. The trial court and first appellate court both ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The High Court, in this second appeal under Section 100 CPC, examined whether any substantial question of law arose. It found that the courts below had concurrently held the plaintiff to be the owner based on evidence, including mortgage documents, decree, and revenue records. The court noted that the defendants' claim of government ownership was not substantiated. The High Court concluded that no substantial question of law existed, as the findings were not perverse or based on misreading of evidence. The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the appellate court was upheld.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - The appeal challenged concurrent findings of fact regarding ownership of suit property - Court held that no substantial question of law arose as findings were based on appreciation of evidence and not perverse - Appeal dismissed (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 raises any substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the judgment of the appellate court dated 04.02.2004 which declared the respondent as owner of the suit property and restrained the appellants from causing obstruction without due process.
Law Points
- Section 100 CPC
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- ownership by adverse possession
- mortgage decree
- Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act
- 1976
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (07) 137
Second Appeal No. 454/2004
Shri Ulhas Aurangabadkar, Assistant Solicitor General of India for appellants; Shri Sunil Manohar, Senior Advocate with Shri N.A. Gaikwad for respondent
Union of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi; Defence Estate Officer, Mumbai; Commanding Officer, 118 Infantry Battalion (TA), Nagpur
M/s Kalpana Enterprises, a registered partnership firm, through its partner Shri Nitin Tatiya
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment of the appellate court in a suit for declaration of ownership and injunction.
Remedy Sought
The respondent-plaintiff sought declaration of ownership of suit property and injunction restraining the appellants from causing obstruction to its possession without due process.
Filing Reason
The appellants (original defendants) were aggrieved by the appellate court's judgment declaring the respondent as owner and restraining them from obstruction.
Previous Decisions
The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff; the appellate court confirmed that decree in Regular Civil Appeal No.283 of 2003 on 04.02.2004.
Issues
Whether the second appeal under Section 100 CPC raises any substantial question of law?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the courts below erred in holding the plaintiff as owner and that the property belonged to the government.
Respondent argued that concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and no substantial question of law arose.
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 findings of the courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not give rise to any substantial question of law.
Judgment Excerpts
This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the original defendants who are aggrieved by the judgment of the appellate Court dated 04.02.2004 in Regular Civil Appeal No.283 of 2003 whereby the respondent-plaintiff has been declared as the owner of the suit property and the appellants have been restrained from causing any obstruction to its possession over the suit property through their agents and servants without following the due process of law.
Procedural History
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of ownership and injunction. The trial court decreed the suit. The defendants appealed to the appellate court, which dismissed the appeal on 04.02.2004. The defendants then filed the present second appeal under Section 100 CPC before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
- Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976:
