Synopsis

The plaintiff purchased property by a registered sale deed in 2001. The defendants, claiming to be members of a Hindu undivided family with ancestral rights in the property, refused to vacate. The trial court decreed possession in favour of the plaintiff. The first appellate court confirmed the decree. The defendants filed a second appeal, arguing that the property was ancestral and the sale deed was void. The high court dismissed the second appeal, holding that the defendants had neither cross‑examined the plaintiff nor led any evidence to prove their alleged ancestral rights. The court reaffirmed that under section 100 cpc, a second appeal lies only on a substantial question of law, not on re‑appreciation of concurrent findings of fact.

Court: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Devan M. Desai (Single Judge)

Date of Judgment: 20th April 2026

Citation: R/Second Appeal No. 243 of 2026 (unreported)

Core Law: Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 100 (Second Appeal – substantial question of law); Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – presumption from failure to cross-examine or lead evidence; Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – rights of purchaser under registered sale deed.

1. Heading of the judgment

High court of gujarat at ahmedabad

Second appeal no. 243 of 2026 with civil application no. 1 of 2026

Amrishkumar shantilal patel and ors. (appellants) vs. Legal heirs of deceased ishvarbhai bhikhabhai patel – pankajbhai ishvarbhai patel and ors. (respondents)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice devan m. desai

Date: 20th april, 2026

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

• Code of civil procedure, 1908 – section 100 (second appeal only on substantial question of law), order 41 rule 31 (duty of first appellate court to frame points for determination)

• Indian evidence act, 1872 – section 114 (presumption that evidence not produced would be unfavourable); pr

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.