Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Civil Court Decree in Suit for Injunction and Declaration — Concurrent Findings of Fact Not Interfered With Under Article 227. Petitioners failed to establish exclusive ownership over suit property; findings of trial court and first appellate court upheld as per Section 100 CPC.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution

Admin

2026-05-18 14:38:13

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, Ganesh D Tapkir and Santosh Krushna Patil, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and decree dated 30th November 2024 passed by the District Judge, Pune, in Civil Appeal No. 333 of 2023, which confirmed the decree dated 30th August 2023 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune, in Special Civil Suit No. 100 of 2019. The suit was filed by respondent No.1 (Baner Yethil Samasta Gramastha Mandal) and respondent No.2 (Rahul Krushnaji Parkhe) against the petitioners and others seeking a declaration that the suit property is a public road and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing its use. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the suit property is a public road and that the defendants have no right to obstruct it. The first appellate court confirmed the decree. The petitioners contended that the courts below erred in holding that the suit property is a public road and that they failed to consider the evidence on record. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below were based on evidence and were not perverse. The court observed that the petitioners failed to prove their exclusive ownership over the suit property and that the findings of the courts below were plausible. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the concurrent findings of fact.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Concurrent Findings of Fact - Interference under Article 227 - The High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The petitioners failed to demonstrate any perversity in the findings of the trial court and the first appellate court. (Paras 1-22)

B) Property Law - Suit for Declaration and Injunction - Burden of Proof - In a suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction, the plaintiff must prove his title and possession. The trial court and first appellate court concurrently held that the petitioners failed to prove their exclusive ownership over the suit property. (Paras 1-22)

C) Civil Procedure - Appeal under Section 96 CPC - Scope of Second Appeal - The first appellate court, being the final court of fact, its findings cannot be re-appreciated in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 unless a substantial question of law arises. (Paras 1-22)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the first appellate court in a suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction.

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the first appellate court.

Law Points

Concurrent findings of fact
Interference under Article 227
Suit for declaration and injunction
Burden of proof
Ownership and possession

Case Details

2026:BHC-AS:15517

Writ Petition No. 16288 of 2025

2026-04-01

N. J. Jamadar, J.

2026:BHC-AS:15517

Mr. Anil Anturkar, Senior Advocate, Atharva Date, Kashish Chellani, Minal Chandnani, i/b Hemanth Ghadigaonkar, for the Petitioners. Mr. Avinash Bhuskute, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 10. Adv R.S. Khadapkar, for Respondent No.11.

Ganesh D Tapkir and Santosh Krushna Patil

Baner Yethil Samasta Gramastha Mandal and others

Nature of Litigation

Civil writ petition under Article 227 challenging concurrent findings in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought to quash the judgment and decree of the first appellate court and trial court which declared the suit property as a public road and restrained the petitioners from obstructing its use.

Filing Reason

Petitioners claimed that the courts below erred in holding that the suit property is a public road and that they failed to consider the evidence on record.

Previous Decisions

Trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs on 30th August 2023; first appellate court confirmed the decree on 30th November 2024.

Issues

Whether the High Court under Article 227 should interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and first appellate court. Whether the petitioners proved their exclusive ownership over the suit property.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the courts below erred in holding that the suit property is a public road and that the findings were perverse. Respondents contended that the concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and should not be interfered with.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court under Article 227 will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The petitioners failed to demonstrate any perversity in the findings of the courts below.

Judgment Excerpts

The High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The petitioners failed to prove their exclusive ownership over the suit property.

Procedural History

The suit was filed in 2019 as Special Civil Suit No. 100 of 2019 before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune. The trial court decreed the suit on 30th August 2023. The petitioners appealed to the District Judge, Pune, in Civil Appeal No. 333 of 2023, which was dismissed on 30th November 2024. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition under Article 227.