Basantibai Bewa vs Radheshyam - 2026 Supreme(MP) 656

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Sections 100 and 101 - Second Appeal - Substantial question of law - Scope of interference by High Court in concurrent findings of fact - A second appeal is entertainable only if the case involves a substantial question of law, which is a condition precedent for the exercise of jurisdiction (Paras 12, 13) - The High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below unless such findings are based on no evidence or are perverse (Paras 14, 15, 16).

(B) Perversity - Findings of the first appellate court, as the final court of facts, cannot be disturbed even if erroneous, unless they are vitiated on a wrong test, based on assumptions and conjectures, or are extremely perverse so as to affect the judicial conscience of a judge (Paras 14, 19).

(C) Property Law - License and Possession - Where possession is permitted as a license, such possession becomes unauthorized and illegal upon the revocation of the license by a legal notice; the lawful owner is entitled to recovery of possession (Paras 20, 21).

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff was allotted a plot and subsequently constructed a house. A portion of the house was permitted to be occupied by close relatives (defendants) temporarily for the purpose of a marriage ceremony. Despite the completion of the ceremony and a subsequent legal notice revoking the license, the defendants failed to vacate the premises. The defendants contested the suit by claiming they had purchased the portion via an agreement to sale and had resided there for years with electricity connections. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court concurrently held that the plaintiff was the owner and the defendants were mere licensees, dismissing the validity of the agreement to sale due to lack of registration and proper stamping.

Findings of Court:
The courts below correctly determined that the plaintiff is the lawful owner of the disputed property and that the defendants were permitted to occupy the premises only as licensees. Upon revocation of the license, the continued occupation became illegal. The claim for monthly compensation was rejected due to a lack of cogent evidence regarding actual monetary loss.

Issues: Whether the second appeal involves a substantial question of law and whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts were perverse enough to warrant interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Ratio Decidendi: The jurisdiction of the High Court in a second appeal is confined to substantial questions of law. Concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the first appellate court are binding on the High Court unless they are perverse or contrary to mandatory provisions of law. In the present case, the findings were based on a proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, and no substantial question of law arose from the concurrent findings of fact.

Result: Second Appeal is hereby dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Second appeal under Section 100 CPC against concurrent findings in suit for possession based on revocation of license. (Para 3 )

ORDER :

Alok Awasthi, J.

Heard on the question of admission.

2. This Second appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code (for brevity, CPC), 1908 has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 11.03.2025, passed by the Ist District Judge, District Badwani in Regular Civil Appeal No. 11/2024, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 11.04.2023, passed by learned First Civil Judge, Junior Division, District Badwani in Civil Suit No. RCS-A/22/2019 wherein the Trial Court has decreed the plaintiff/respondent suit for declaring the plaintiff/respondent as owner of the suit property.

3. Necessary facts for disposal of this appeal, in brief are that t he respondent/plaintiff was allotted Plot No. 12 admeasuring 5400 sq. ft. at Village Aavali by the Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Officer after his residential house was acquired by the Government, treating him as a displaced person. In the year 2008, the respondent/plaintiff raised construction on a portion of the western side of the plot, leaving the remaining eastern portion vacant. Subsequently, during the year 2009–10, further construction was raised on the eastern portion of the plot.

4 . The appellants/defendants are close relatives of the respondent/plaintiff. According to the respondent/plaintiff, the appellants/defendants were permitted to occupy the eastern portion of the house in April 2018 only for the purpose of performing the marriage ceremony of appellant/defendant No. 2, on the assurance that possession would be handed back after the ceremony. However, despite the marriage being solemnized on 14.04.2018, the appellants/defendants allegedly failed to vacate the premises.

5 . The respondent/plaintiff claimed that the said permission was a license which was revoked by legal notice dated 25.06.2019. As the appellants/defendants did not vacate the disputed portion even thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff instituted a civil suit seeking possession of the disputed house along with compensation.

6 . The appellants/defendants contested the suit by denying the allegation of permissive possession and pleaded that the respondent/plaintiff had, due to financial need, sold the eastern portion of the plot to the husband of appellant/defendant No. 1 under an agreement to sale dated 10.02.2009 for a consideration of Rs. 90,000/-. It was further pleaded that after execution of the said agreement, the purchaser constructed a tin shed and remained in possession along with his family. After his death in the year 2013, the appellants/defendants continued in possession, raised permanent construction, obtained electricity connection in their own names, and resided peacefully without objection for several years.

7. It was further pleaded that the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff was barred by limitation, undervalued, and not maintainable, and that the respondent/plaintiff had no right to seek possession after remaining silent for several years despite the appellants’ open and continuous possession.

8. The learned Trial Court, by judgment dated 11.04.2023, partially decreed the suit in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants/defendants preferred a first appeal, Civil Regular Appeal No. 11/2024. The First Appellate Court, by judgment dated 11.03.2025, dismissed the appeal, held the agreement dated 10.02.2009 to be inadmissible for want of registration and proper stamping, and affirmed the findings of the Trial Court.

9. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings and judgments passed by the Courts below, the appellants/defendants have preferred the present Second Appeal.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the findings of the learned Courts below were incorrect in the eyes of law and facts. He has also argued that the Court below committed a legal error in dismissing the appeal by ignoring the fact that the appellant had constructed a house after notarizing the plot, believing that the appellant was a close relative, and he

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(MP) 656

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Alok Awasthi, J.
Basantibai Bewa and Others – Appellants
Versus
Radheshyam – Respondent
Second Appeal No. 1343 of 2025
Decided On : 15-01-2026

A second appeal under Section 100 CPC is maintainable only on a substantial question of law. Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are binding on the High Court unless they are perverse, based on no evidence, or result from an incorrect legal test.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(MP) 656

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDOREAlok Awasthi, J.Basantibai Bewa and Others – AppellantsVersusRadheshyam – RespondentSecond Appeal No. 1343 of 2025Decided On : 15-01-2026

A second appeal under Section 100 CPC is maintainable only on a substantial question of law. Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are binding on the High Court unless they are perverse, based on no evidence, or result from an incorrect legal test.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

Cases Referred (27)

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Alok Awasthi, J.
Basantibai Bewa and Others – Appellants
Versus
Radheshyam – Respondent
Second Appeal No. 1343 of 2025
Decided On : 15-01-2026