Non-Cross-Examination of Lawful Owner and Failure to Lead Evidence Mandates Eviction of Gratuitous Occupants

The plaintiff purchased the suit property (Chikhodra Survey No. 198/2) from defendant No. 6 via a registered sale deed dated 19.06.2001 for ₹7,70,000/-

Defendants No. 1–5 and 9 remained in possession and allegedly executed a writing on 17.07.2001 promising to vacate within six months, but subsequently refused to do so

The defendants contended the property was ancestral Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property and that defendant No. 6 had no exclusive right to sell it

the defendants failed to cross-examine the plaintiff or lead any oral/documentary evidence during the trial

The Trial Court and First Appellate Court both decreed in favor of the plaintiff

1. Whether the suit property was ancestral property or the self-acquired property of defendant No. 6 following a prior partition

2. Whether the defendants’ failure to lead evidence or cross-examine the plaintiff results in an adverse inference under the law of evidence

3. Whether the Second Appeal involves any "substantial question of law" as required under Section 100 of the CPC

Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which restricts Second Appeals to "substantial questions of law" rather than pure findings of fact

evidentiary principle that if a party fails to cross-examine a witness on a material point or fails to offer themselves for cross-examination, the court may presume the opposing party’s version is accepted

Under Section 103 of the CPC, the High Court’s power to determine issues of fact is limited to specific instances where the lower courts failed to do so or did so erroneously due to a mistake of law

concurrent findings of fact should not be disturbed unless they are perverse or contrary to mandatory legal provisions (Jaichand v. Sahnulal (2024) and Kondira Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar (1999))

The Court observed that while the defendants claimed the property was ancestral, revenue records indicated a prior partition where the legal heirs of Shantilal Patel (including defendants No. 1 and 9) had withdrawn their rights in favor of defendant No. 6, making the property his self-acquired asset

the defendants led zero evidence to rebut the registered sale deed or the plaintiff's testimony

since a registered sale deed carries a presumption of validity and the defendants' prior attempts to challenge it in separate suits had failed or were dismissed, there was no legal basis to deny the plaintiff possession

The High Court found the proposed questions of law were merely disagreements with factual findings

The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts, ruling that the plaintiff is the lawful owner via a registered sale deed and is entitled to recovery of possession

All interim reliefs were vacated, and the defendants were ordered to hand over possession