Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal filed by the appellants (defendants 15 and 16 in the original suit) against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court, which confirmed the trial court's decision in Regular Civil Suit No.50/2005/A. The respondents (plaintiffs 1 to 4) had filed the suit seeking a declaration that they were co-owners of the suit property and that a sale deed executed by the defendants was void. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the sale deed was not supported by consideration and that the defendants failed to prove their title. The first appellate court affirmed this decision. In the second appeal, the appellants contended that the courts below erred in their findings and that substantial questions of law arose. The High Court, however, found that the concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and were not perverse. The court observed that the burden to prove consideration for the sale deed lay on the defendants, and they failed to discharge it. The court also noted that the appellants did not raise any substantial question of law as required under Section 100 CPC. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed, and the judgments of the lower courts were upheld.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - The court reiterated that in a second appeal, interference with concurrent findings of fact is permissible only if the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The appellants failed to demonstrate any perversity or error of law in the judgments of the trial court and the first appellate court. (Paras 1-10) B) Property Law - Co-ownership - Sale Deed - Void for Lack of Consideration - The plaintiffs, as co-owners, sought a declaration that the sale deed executed by the defendants was void. The courts below concurrently held that the sale deed was not supported by consideration and that the defendants failed to prove the passing of consideration. The High Court upheld this finding, noting that the defendants did not discharge their burden of proof. (Paras 5-8) C) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Sale Deed - Consideration - The burden to prove consideration for a sale deed lies on the party relying on the deed. In this case, the defendants failed to adduce credible evidence to show that consideration was paid. The concurrent findings of the courts below on this issue were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. (Paras 6-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) raises any substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the judgments of the trial court and the first appellate court. The court found no substantial question of law and no perversity in the concurrent findings.
Law Points
- Second appeal
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- interference limited to perversity
- sale deed void for lack of consideration
- co-ownership
- burden of proof
- Section 100 CPC
