Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 13.08.2021 passed in R.A.No.89/2017 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chickballapura, sitting at Chintamani, which dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 29.05.2017 passed in O.S.No.92/2003 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sidlaghatta. The appellants, who are the legal representatives of the deceased original plaintiff Muniyappa, had filed a suit for partition and injunction claiming that the suit property was joint family property and that the defendants had denied their share. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove that the property was joint family property and that no prior partition had taken place. The lower appellate court concurred with these findings. In the second appeal, the appellants contended that the courts below erred in appreciating the evidence and that substantial questions of law arose. The High Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents, found that the findings of fact recorded by the courts below were concurrent and not perverse. The court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration and dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgments of the courts below.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Regular Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - The High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The appellant failed to demonstrate any perversity or error of law in the findings of the courts below. (Paras 1-10) B) Hindu Law - Partition - Joint Family Property - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff must prove that the suit property is joint family property and that no prior partition has taken place. The courts below found that the plaintiff failed to discharge this burden, and the High Court upheld this finding. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court confirming the trial court's dismissal of the suit for partition and injunction suffers from any substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court dated 13.08.2021 in R.A.No.89/2017 confirming the trial court's judgment and decree dated 29.05.2017 in O.S.No.92/2003 are confirmed.
Law Points
- Section 100 CPC
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- partition
- joint family property
- burden of proof
