Case Note & Summary
The case involves two connected regular second appeals arising from a common judgment of the Senior Civil Judge, Doddaballapur, in R.A.No.5/2009 and R.A.No.6/2009. The appellants, legal representatives of the original plaintiff G. Hanumantharayappa, had filed O.S.No.50/1986 for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule properties, claiming ownership and possession. The respondents, defendants in the suit, contested the claim and also filed O.S.No.51/1986 for partition and separate possession of the same properties. The trial court dismissed O.S.No.50/1986 and decreed O.S.No.51/1986, granting partition. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed two appeals before the first appellate court, which were dismissed by a common judgment dated 24.06.2010. The present second appeals were filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court, after hearing the parties, framed the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the first appellate court was justified in dismissing the appeals without properly appreciating the evidence? (ii) Whether the findings of the courts below are perverse? The court noted that the first appellate court had concurrently found that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title and possession over the suit properties, and that the suit for declaration was barred by limitation. The compromise decree in O.S.No.50/1986 was held to be binding. The High Court found no perversity or illegality in the concurrent findings and held that no substantial question of law arose. Accordingly, both appeals were dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree of the first appellate court.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - Concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in second appeal unless shown to be perverse or based on no evidence - The High Court held that the first appellate court's findings on title, possession, and limitation were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not give rise to any substantial question of law (Paras 1-10). B) Property Law - Declaration of Title - Limitation - Suit for declaration and injunction filed beyond 12 years from date of dispossession is barred by limitation - The plaintiffs' suit for declaration of title and injunction was dismissed as they failed to prove possession within 12 years prior to suit and the suit was held to be barred by limitation (Paras 5-8). C) Property Law - Compromise Decree - Binding Nature - A compromise decree entered into between parties is binding and cannot be challenged collaterally except on grounds of fraud or misrepresentation - The compromise decree in O.S.No.50/1986 was held to be valid and binding, and the plaintiffs' challenge to it was not sustainable (Paras 4-6). D) Property Law - Partition - Final Decree - Once a preliminary decree is passed, the suit continues until final decree is passed - The trial court's decree for partition in O.S.No.51/1986 was upheld, and the appeal against it was dismissed (Paras 9-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and decree of the first appellate court in R.A.No.5/2009 and R.A.No.6/2009 suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
Both regular second appeals are dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 24.06.2010 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Doddaballapur, in R.A.No.5/2009 and R.A.No.6/2009 are confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- concurrent findings of fact
- substantial question of law
- interference with findings of fact
- compromise decree
- binding nature of compromise
- limitation for filing suit for declaration
- adverse possession
- burden of proof
- partition suit
- final decree proceedings
