Case Note & Summary
The appellants (original plaintiffs) filed a suit for permanent injunction simpliciter against the respondents (original defendants) claiming that they had purchased a plot of land admeasuring 494 sq.mts. by a Sale Deed dated 04/03/1972 and that an area of 402 sq.mts. was encircled within a compound wall, leaving a strip of land of 1.5 mts. width on the northern side. They alleged that the defendants were interfering with their possession over the said strip. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession over the disputed strip. The first appellate court affirmed this finding. The plaintiffs then filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that no substantial question of law arose as the findings of fact were concurrent and based on evidence. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The High Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and first appellate court in a suit for permanent injunction simpliciter, as no substantial question of law arose. The courts below had correctly held that the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession over the disputed strip of land. (Paras 1-3) B) Property Law - Permanent Injunction - Possession - Burden of Proof - Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 38 - In a suit for permanent injunction simpliciter, the plaintiff must establish his possession over the suit property. The plaintiffs failed to discharge this burden as the evidence showed that the disputed strip was not within their compound wall and was used by the defendants. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the courts below erred in dismissing the suit for permanent injunction simpliciter on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession over the disputed strip of land.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the courts below that the plaintiffs failed to prove possession over the disputed strip.
Law Points
- Permanent injunction simpliciter
- burden of proof
- possession
- concurrent findings of fact
- second appeal
- substantial question of law
