Case Note & Summary
The appellants, who were the defendants in a partition suit, filed a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) against the judgment and decree dated 21.01.2025 passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sagar, in RA No.11/2024. The First Appellate Court had allowed the appeal filed by the respondents/plaintiffs and set aside the trial court's judgment and decree, thereby decreeing the suit for partition. The suit was filed by the respondents seeking partition and separate possession of their share in the suit property, claiming it to be joint family property. The trial court had dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that the property was joint family property. On appeal, the First Appellate Court re-appreciated the evidence and reversed the finding, holding that the property was indeed joint family property and that the plaintiffs were entitled to a share. The appellants challenged this before the High Court, contending that the First Appellate Court had erred in reversing the trial court's judgment without proper justification. The High Court, after hearing the counsel for the appellants, examined the judgment of the First Appellate Court and found that it had thoroughly re-appreciated the evidence and recorded concurrent findings of fact. The High Court noted that under Section 100 CPC, a second appeal lies only on a substantial question of law, and the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court, being the final court of fact, cannot be interfered with unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The High Court found no perversity in the findings and held that no substantial question of law arose. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the decree of partition.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Regular Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - The appeal under Section 100 CPC is maintainable only if a substantial question of law arises. The High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless perverse or based on no evidence. (Para 1-2) B) Partition - Joint Family Property - Burden of Proof - In a suit for partition, the plaintiff must prove that the property is joint family property. Once that is established, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that the property is not joint. (Para 3-4) C) Evidence Act - Appreciation of Evidence - Concurrent Findings - The First Appellate Court, being the final court of fact, had re-appreciated the evidence and recorded findings that the suit property was joint family property and that the plaintiffs were entitled to a share. The High Court found no perversity in those findings. (Para 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in RA No.11/2024 reversing the trial court's judgment and decree calls for interference in this regular second appeal under Section 100 CPC.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court decreeing the suit for partition.
Law Points
- Section 100 CPC
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- partition suit
- joint family property
- interference with findings of fact
