Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal filed by Sou. Sheetal Ulhas Dangi, who was the original defendant no.22, against the judgment and decree passed by the District Court, Sindhudurg, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2012, which confirmed the decree of the trial court in Regular Civil Suit No. 14 of 2008. The suit was filed by Subhash Shivaji Sawant (since deceased, represented by his legal heirs) and others seeking possession and declaration of title over certain immovable property. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, and the first appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant. Aggrieved, the defendant filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The appellant contended that the courts below had erred in appreciating the evidence and that the findings were perverse. However, the High Court observed that the second appeal is confined to substantial questions of law and that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both courts were based on a proper evaluation of the evidence. The court noted that the appellant failed to point out any substantial question of law that would warrant interference. The court also considered the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and found the explanation satisfactory. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the courts below. The court held that no interference was called for in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The High Court held that a second appeal lies only on a substantial question of law and not on findings of fact. The appellant failed to demonstrate any such question, and the concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court were based on proper appreciation of evidence. (Paras 1-10) B) Limitation - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 Limitation Act, 1963 - The court condoned the delay in filing the second appeal, noting that the appellant had explained the delay satisfactorily and no prejudice would be caused to the respondents. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeal involves any substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below.
Final Decision
Second appeal dismissed. The concurrent findings of the courts below are upheld. No substantial question of law arises for consideration.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- concurrent findings of fact
- substantial question of law
- limitation for filing second appeal
- power of High Court to interfere with findings of fact
