#CPC Section 100

The Himachal Pradesh High Court reaffirmed that second appeals under Section 100 CPC cannot disturb concurrent factual findings by trial and appellate courts unless they are perverse or involve a substantial question of law. This reinforces the limited appellate scope in testamentary disputes, protecting finality in property succession cases where evidence appreciation is heavily fact-dependent.

The Bombay High Court holds that under Muslim Personal Law, a father’s oral partition of property during his lifetime has no legal effect, and any claim of Hiba (gift) requires specific pleading and concrete proof-mutation entries alone cannot establish title. This ruling reinforces procedural rigor in property disputes involving Muslim heirs and closes loopholes for revenue record-based title claims.

Gauhati HC ruled that probate courts cannot adjudicate title disputes and must issue mandatory notice to all interested parties, including remote heirs, before granting probate. The court set aside a probate granted without notice to appellants, remanding the matter for fresh hearing under principles of natural justice. This ruling reinforces procedural safeguards in succession disputes under the Indian Succession Act.

Chhattisgarh HC rules that a sale deed executed without co-sharers' consent in ancestral property is void ab initio. Subsequent purchasers, even if transactions are registered, cannot claim independent title if litigation was pending at the time of purchase, reinforcing the doctrine of constructive notice under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Gauhati High Court reinforces that appellate courts cannot disturb findings based on uncontroverted evidence unless they are perverse. The ruling awards Rs. 2,08,019.70 to a contractor for completed work and refund of earnest money, setting a precedent for contract disputes where evidence remains unchallenged.

Chhattisgarh High Court rules that a bona fide purchaser under a registered sale deed holds valid title even if prior claimants failed to assert possession or demonstrate consistent conduct. The ruling reinforces the protection of registered transactions under property law, dismissing the second appeal under Section 100 CPC.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that a plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must establish exclusive, peaceful possession as of the suit date, not merely rely on tax receipts or ancestral claims. Mere title disputes or historical assertions cannot substitute for demonstrable, current control over the property, setting a clear evidentiary bar for injunctions in civil possession disputes.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court affirmed that continuous possession reflected in revenue records up to the date of filing a suit is decisive for granting injunction, even when ownership lies with the government. Sudden shifts in khasra girdawari entries, unsupported by evidence or explanation, cannot displace established possession, reinforcing that possession trumps paper titles in interim relief matters.

Andhra Pradesh High Court upholds validity of registered gift deed under Mohammedan law, affirming constructive possession and barring new pleas in second appeal.

Madras High Court holds that adverse possession cannot extinguish joint ownership where sale deed names both parties; burden of proving hostile title remains on the possessor.