Second appellant challenged redemption of mortgage decree. High Court noted no substantial question of law as no perversity in findings below. Appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
sa198.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
SECOND APPEAL NO. 198 OF 2016
Ramling S/o Nana Ambirkar (Deceased through LRs)
Appellant
Versus
Arun S/o Manohar Panchutre
Respondent
Mr. S. S. Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. P. K. Deshmukh, Advocate for the respondent.
CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 13th MARCH, 2023.
PER COURT :
sa198.16.odt
is any perversity or illegality in the judgments of Courts below or total absence in considering the evidence available on record or misreading of evidence. There must involve a substantial question of law to entertain second appeal. In this regard reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ramathal vs. Maruthathal and others, AIR 2018 Supreme Court 340 , wherein it is observed thus :-
“15. A clear reading of section 100 and 103 of the CPC envisages that a burden is placed upon the appellant to state in the memorandum of grounds of appeal the substantial question of law that is involved in the appeal, then the high court being satisfed that such a substantial question of law arises for its consideration has to formulate the questions of law and decide the appeal. Hence a prerequisite for entertaining a Second appeal is a substantial question of law involved in the case which has to be adjudicated by the high court. It is the intention of the Legislature to limit the scope of second appeal only when a substantial question of law is involved and the amendment to section 100 makes the legislative intent more clear that it never wanted the High Court to be a fact fnding court. However, it is not an absolute rule that high court cannot interfere in a second appeal on
sa198.16.odt
a question of fact, Section 103 of the CPC enables the High Court to consider the evidence when the same has been wrongly determined by the courts below on which a substantial question of law arises as referred to in Section 100. When appreciation of evidence suffers from material irregularities and when there is perversity in the fndings of the court which are not based on any material, court is empowered to interfere on a question of fact as well. Unless and until there is absolute perversity, it would not be appropriate for the High Courts to interfere in a question of fact just because two views are possible, in such circumstances the High Courts should restrain itself from exercising the jurisdiction on a question of fact.
sa198.16.odt
sa198.16.odt
never intended to sell suit property. On the other hand defendant was unable to rebut the said evidence. The only contention of defendant is that he being illiterate, plaintiff has obtained document in his favour without refecting correct transaction. There is no material evidence on record to substantiate the said claim. No action is however taken by defendant, if it was his case that the document in question was obtained by plaintiff by taking disadvantage of illiteracy. On the contrary application made by him to Revenue Authority for mutation of his name also indicates the nature of transaction between parties.
sa198.16.odt
dyb
3 issues framed by the court
whether the High Court can interfere with findings of fact on the ground of perversity in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC
whether the transaction in question was a genuine mortgage by conditional sale or a mortgage by way of security for a loan
whether the impugned judgments of courts below suffered from any perversity warranting interference in second appeal
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
RAMATHAL vs. MARUTHATHAL AND OTHERSReferred¶17
Ramathal vs. Maruthathal and others, AIR 2018 Supreme Court 340 · Who else cites this
Ramling S/o Nana Ambirkar (Deceased through LRs)
Arun S/o Manohar Panchutre
R. M. Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
