Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Somayya Belchada, filed a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 07.08.2020 passed in R.A.No.03/2016 by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Udupi, which dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 17.11.2015 passed in O.S.No.100/2002 by the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi. The original suit was filed by the respondents (plaintiffs) seeking a declaration that they are the absolute owners of the plaint 'A' schedule properties. The plaintiffs claimed that Aithu Belchada, their father, had occupancy rights over the property. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring them as absolute owners. The First Appellate Court confirmed this decision. The appellant, who was the defendant in the suit, challenged these concurrent findings in the second appeal. The High Court, after hearing the counsel for both sides, held that the appeal was filed against concurrent findings of fact and that the appellant failed to raise any substantial question of law. The court noted that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had properly appreciated the evidence and recorded findings that were not perverse. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court reiterated that in a second appeal, 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 substantial question of law. (Paras 1-2) B) Property Law - Declaration of Title - Concurrent Findings - The Trial Court and First Appellate Court concurrently held that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the plaint 'A' schedule properties based on evidence of possession and title. The High Court found no reason to disturb these findings. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court granting declaration of ownership in favor of the plaintiffs suffer from any perversity or raise a substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court granting declaration of ownership in favor of the plaintiffs.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Substantial question of law
- Section 100 CPC
- Declaration of title
- Possession
- Burden of proof
