2022 (10) TMI 626 - HC - Indian Laws

Plaintiff's Injunction Suit Over Porch Dismissed for Lack of Ownership Proof

The Plaintiff's suit for a permanent injunction against the Defendant-Government of NCT of Delhi, seeking to protect a porch constructed on the property, ... Concurrent findings of fact - scope of second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure - substantial question of law - burden of proof regarding title and boundaries - production of witnesses and best evidenceProduction of witnesses and best evidence - burden of proof regarding title and boundaries - Whether the plaintiff was obliged to produce the vendors as witnesses and whether non-production warranted setting aside the trial court's finding. - HELD THAT: - The High Court held that the question whether the vendors should have been produced is not a substantial question of law. The plaintiff chose the manner of leading evidence; production of the sellers was not a precondition to prove title or rights in the raasta. The trial court independently examined the sale deed and other evidence and found that the 10 ft. raasta on the east was described in the sale deed as a raasta abutting the property, and the plaintiff failed to prove that the raasta had been left out of the vendible area by the original sellers. The trial court's observation that the best evidence would have been the sellers was a passing remark and did not form the sole basis for dismissal; the substantive finding rested on analysis of the sale deed and evidence on record. [Paras 10, 11, 12]Non-production of the vendors did not constitute a ground to interfere with the concurrent finding that the plaintiff failed to prove rights in the 10 ft. raasta.Concurrent findings of fact - scope of second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure - substantial question of law - Whether the High Court should interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the first appellate court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. - HELD THAT: - Relying on established precedent, the Court reiterated that the jurisdiction in a second appeal is narrowly confined to questions of law; concurrent findings of fact cannot be routinely reappreciated unless shown to be perverse or unsupported by material on record. The High Court examined the judgments below, including the trial court's consideration of the sale deed and the appellate court's rejection of plaintiff's evidence, and found no compelling reason to disturb the concurrent factual conclusions. The Court noted that even if another view were possible, that does not justify interference where the view taken by the courts below is based on material. [Paras 12, 13, 14]No substantial question of law arose; the concurrent findings of fact were upheld and interference in the second appeal was refused.Final Conclusion: The second appeal is dismissed; the concurrent factual findings of the trial and first appellate courts that the plaintiff failed to prove rights in the 10 ft. raasta are maintained and no substantial question of law is found to warrant interference. Issues:- Suit for permanent injunction against the Defendant-Government of NCT of Delhi- Dismissal of the suit by Trial Court and Appellate Court- Plaintiff's claim of constructing a porch on the property- Dispute over the ownership of the Raasta on the East side of the property- Examination of witnesses and evidence presented by both parties- Analysis of the sale deed and conclusions drawn by the Trial Court- Appellate Court's affirmation of Trial Court's decision- Argument regarding the necessity of producing sellers as witnesses- Applicability of substantial question of law in the case- Scope of interference in second appealDetailed Analysis:The case involved a suit for permanent injunction filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant-Government of NCT of Delhi, seeking to restrain the demolition of a porch constructed on the property. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court dismissed the suit, stating that the Plaintiff failed to prove his case. The Plaintiff claimed to have purchased the land and constructed the porch a decade before the suit was filed in 2005. The Defendant argued that the Raasta on the East side, where the porch was built, was public utility land and not part of the Plaintiff's property.During the trial, both parties presented witnesses and evidence. The Trial Court analyzed the sale deed and concluded that the Plaintiff could not prove his rights over the Raasta on the East side as claimed. The Appellate Court upheld this decision, emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting the Plaintiff's case. The Plaintiff's argument regarding the non-production of sellers as witnesses was considered by the Court, which determined that it did not impact the Trial Court's judgment.The Court clarified that the question of whether the sellers needed to be produced did not constitute a substantial question of law. Citing legal precedents, the Court highlighted the limited scope of interference in second appeals, emphasizing that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts should not be disturbed unless there are compelling reasons. Based on this legal framework, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the lower courts' decisions and dismissed the second appeal, affirming the concurrent findings and emphasizing the importance of not reappreciating evidence unless necessary.