Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal filed by the original plaintiffs (appellants) against the judgment and decree of the District Court dismissing their suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction in respect of suit property. The appellants claimed to be owners in possession of the property, but the respondents (defendants) disputed their title. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the appellants failed to prove their title and possession. The first appellate court confirmed the findings. In the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court examined whether any substantial question of law arose. The court noted that the concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and were not perverse. The appellants could not demonstrate any error of law or jurisdiction. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the concurrent findings. The court also disposed of the interim application as infructuous.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court considered whether the second appeal raised any substantial question of law. Held that concurrent findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence cannot be interfered with in second appeal unless perverse or based on no evidence. (Paras 1-10) B) Property Law - Title and Possession - Burden of Proof - Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 34 - The plaintiff sought declaration of ownership and injunction. The trial court and first appellate court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff failed to prove title and possession. Held that the burden lies on the plaintiff to establish his case and the concurrent findings were not shown to be perverse. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeal involves any substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below.
Final Decision
Second Appeal dismissed. Concurrent findings of fact upheld. No substantial question of law. Interim Application disposed of.
Law Points
- Burden of proof
- Title suit
- Concurrent findings
- Second appeal
- Substantial question of law
- Section 100 CPC
