Case Note & Summary
The Regular Second Appeal was filed by the defendant-appellant against the concurrent judgment and decree of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court. The Trial Court had decreed the suit in O.S.No.61/2012, declaring the plaintiff-respondent (Bramhanara Sangha) as the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of a Will (Ex.P3) and directing the defendant to deliver vacant possession within three months, failing which the plaintiff could recover possession through court process. The First Appellate Court in R.A.No.99/2017 dismissed the appeal, confirming the Trial Court's judgment. The appellant-defendant then filed this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court heard learned counsel for both sides. The court noted that the appeal was against concurrent findings of fact. The appellant failed to raise any substantial question of law or demonstrate perversity in the findings. The court held that there was no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgments of the lower courts.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Concurrent Findings of Fact - Interference - The High Court in a second appeal cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. The appellant failed to demonstrate any substantial question of law. (Paras 2-3) B) Property Law - Will - Declaration of Ownership - The Trial Court and First Appellate Court concurrently held that the plaintiff-Sangha is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of Ex.P3-Will deed and directed the defendant to deliver vacant possession. The concurrent findings were based on evidence and not perverse. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court declaring the plaintiff as the absolute owner of the suit property based on a Will and directing delivery of possession suffer from perversity 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 Trial Court dated 28.04.2017 in O.S.No.61/2012 as confirmed by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.99/2017 dated 20.10.2020 are upheld.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Section 100 CPC
- Perversity
- Will
- Declaration of ownership
- Possession
