Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to three Regular Second Appeals (RSA No. 2256/2006, RSA No. 2257/2006, and RSA No. 2258/2006) filed by the legal representatives of the original plaintiff, Shinganalu Doddabasappa, against the respondents. The dispute concerns a suit for declaration of title and possession of agricultural land. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove title and possession, and that the suit was barred by limitation. The first appellate court confirmed this decision. The appellants then filed these second appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found that the appeals did not raise any substantial question of law. The court noted that the findings of fact by the lower courts were concurrent and based on proper appreciation of evidence. The court observed that the plaintiff had not established possession within 12 years prior to the suit, and thus the suit was barred by limitation under Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The court also noted that the burden of proof was on the plaintiff, which was not discharged. Consequently, the High Court dismissed all three appeals, upholding the decisions of the courts below. The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of interference in second appeals under Section 100 CPC, which is confined to substantial questions of law.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - The court reiterated that in a second appeal, the High Court can interfere only if there is a substantial question of law. Concurrent findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence cannot be re-opened unless perverse or based on no evidence. (Paras 1-10) B) Limitation - Suit for Declaration and Possession - Articles 64 and 65 of Limitation Act, 1963 - The plaintiff's suit for declaration of title and possession was held to be barred by limitation as the plaintiff failed to prove possession within 12 years of the suit. The courts below concurrently found that the plaintiff was not in possession and the suit was filed beyond the period of limitation. (Paras 5-8) C) Property Law - Title and Possession - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proving title and possession over the suit property. The concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court that the plaintiff did not establish title or possession were upheld. (Paras 6-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Regular Second Appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, raise any substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below.
Final Decision
All three Regular Second Appeals are dismissed. The judgments and decrees of the trial court and the first appellate court are confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- concurrent findings of fact
- substantial question of law
- limitation
- adverse possession
- burden of proof
