Case Note & Summary
The case involves a Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the concurrent judgment and decree of the courts below in a partition suit. The plaintiff (respondent No.3) filed O.S.No.23/2014 (old O.S.No.432/2006) seeking 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties. The suit properties originally belonged to one Puteeregowda, who had no male issues and had a daughter named Kempamma @ Kempojamma. Puteeregowda executed a will bequeathing the properties to his daughter Kempamma. Kempamma died leaving behind her husband and three daughters, including the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that after the death of Kempamma, the properties devolved upon her and her two sisters (defendants 1 and 2) as Class I heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The defendants (appellant and respondents 1 and 2) contested the suit, claiming that the will executed by Puteeregowda was valid and that the plaintiff had no right. The Trial Court decreed the suit granting 1/3rd share to the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court in R.A.No.5169/2018 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Trial Court's judgment. The appellant, who was defendant No.3 in the suit, filed the second appeal. The High Court framed the substantial question of law as to whether the concurrent findings are perverse. After hearing the parties, the High Court held that the courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence and found that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share. The High Court found no perversity in the concurrent findings and dismissed the second appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the courts below.
Headnote
A) Hindu Succession Act - Coparcenary - Succession - Section 6, Section 8, Section 15, Section 16 - The plaintiff, daughter of a predeceased daughter of the propositus, claimed 1/3rd share in the suit properties. The courts below held that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share as the propositus died intestate and the plaintiff is a Class I heir under Section 8 read with Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The High Court upheld the concurrent findings, finding no perversity. (Paras 1-10) B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Second Appeal - Section 100 - Interference with concurrent findings - The High Court held that in a second appeal, interference with concurrent findings of fact is permissible only if the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The appellant failed to demonstrate any perversity or substantial question of law. (Paras 11-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below granting 1/3rd share to the plaintiff are perverse and warrant interference under Section 100 of CPC?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the courts below granting 1/3rd share to the plaintiff.
Law Points
- Hindu Succession Act
- 1956
- Section 6
- Section 8
- Section 15
- Section 16
- coparcenary
- partition
- concurrent findings
- substantial question of law
- second appeal
- Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908
- Section 100
