Case Note & Summary
The appellants, original plaintiffs, filed a suit for declaration of title and possession over agricultural land. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title and possession. The first appellate court confirmed the dismissal. The appellants then filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court examined whether any substantial question of law arose. It noted that the courts below had concurrently found that the plaintiffs did not establish their case. The High Court held that in the absence of perversity or jurisdictional error, concurrent findings of fact cannot be reopened in a second appeal. The appeal was dismissed, and the interim application was disposed of.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court considered whether the appeal involved any substantial question of law. Held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in second appeal unless shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. The appellants failed to demonstrate any such error. (Paras 1-10) B) Property Law - Title and Possession - Burden of Proof - The plaintiffs (appellants) claimed title and possession over suit land but failed to produce sufficient evidence. The courts below concurrently held that the plaintiffs did not prove their case. The High Court found no reason to disturb these findings. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, raises any substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below.
Final Decision
Second Appeal dismissed. Interim Application disposed of. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second appeal
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- Section 100 CPC
- interference limited to perversity or jurisdictional error
