Back
SANDEEP N. BHATT
L H of Decd Govindram S Bajaj Mahesh Govindram Bajaj – Appellant
Versus
Kanaiyalal Melumal Ara – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, ‘the CPC’), by the appellant – original plaintiff, arising from the impugned judgment and decree dated 10.03.2022 passed by the learned 5th Additional District Judge, Vadodara in Regular Civil Appeal No.350 of 2019, confirming the judgment and decree dated 24.10.2019 passed by the learned 29th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara in Regular Civil Suit No.720 of 2003, dismissing the same.
2. The brief facts of the present case are as under :
2.1 The suit was filed by the appellant – original plaintiff for permanent injunction regarding Shop No.3 situated at First Floor, City Point, Vadodara (for short, ‘the suit property’), stating that the plaintiff – Govindram S. Bajaj has purchased the suit property from the defendants for a total sale consideration of Rs.71,000/-; and that the plaintiff has plaid an amount of Rs.21,000/- in cash and remaining balance amount of Rs.50,000/- by way of a cheque bearing No.199538 dated 28.05.2003 drawn on City Bank, Vadodara; and that the possession of the suit property long with its materials lying in it has been handed over to the plaintiff by the defendants; and th
The judgment emphasizes the parameters of an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC and the conditions under which a court in second appeal may disturb findings of fact.
The court's decision was based on the finding that the plaintiff had encroached on the defendant's land and failed to prove their case. The court also held that there was no substantial question of l....
The appellate Court's evaluation of evidence and finding no error in the trial Court's decision led to the dismissal of the appeal.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of continuous possession and the lack of evidence to support adverse possession in property disputes.
A second appeal under CPC does not warrant interference when no substantial question of law arises, affirming the necessity of establishing ownership before claiming possession.
In a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent factual findings unless a substantial question of law is demonstrated; addit....
Possession must be assessed by the court based on evidence, not merely on the findings of an Advocate Commissioner.
Where possession of plaintiff-respondent is not satisfactorily proved, no gainful purpose would be served in remanding the mater for re-consideration only on account of procedural lapse committed by ....
The court established that inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC can be exercised to restore possession when parties have been wrongfully dispossessed, irrespective of the formal dismissal of ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
