Case Note & Summary
The judgment arises from a second appeal filed by the original plaintiff against the dismissal of his suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction by the trial court and the first appellate court. The plaintiff claimed ownership and possession of a certain property, but the defendants contested the claim. Both the trial court and the first appellate court, after appreciating the evidence, concurrently held that the plaintiff failed to prove his title and possession. The High Court, in the second appeal, examined whether any substantial question of law arose. The court observed that the findings of fact recorded by the courts below were based on evidence and were not perverse. The court reiterated the limited scope of interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which does not permit re-appreciation of evidence unless a substantial question of law is involved. Since the appellant could not demonstrate any such question, the second appeal was dismissed. The court also noted that the appellant had not framed any substantial question of law at the time of admission. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court reiterated that the jurisdiction of the High Court in a second appeal is confined to substantial questions of law and cannot be exercised to re-appreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless perversity is shown. (Paras 1-14) B) Property Law - Suit for Declaration and Injunction - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff failed to prove title and possession over the suit property; the courts below concurrently held that the plaintiff did not establish his case. The High Court found no perversity in the findings. (Paras 2-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can be entertained in the absence of any substantial question of law, and whether the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below warrant interference.
Final Decision
Second appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second appeal
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- no interference
- Section 100 CPC
