Case Note & Summary
The appellants, legal representatives of the original plaintiffs, filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Jamkhandi, in R.A. No. 31 of 2005, which confirmed the dismissal of O.S. No. 87 of 2001 by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Jamkhandi. The suit was for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of certain immovable property. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed the dismissal. The High Court, after hearing the appellants' counsel, found that the courts below had concurrently held that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title and possession. The High Court noted that the findings were based on evidence and were not perverse. It held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the second appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The Court also noted that the appeal against defendants 1 and 2 had abated.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - The High Court dismissed the second appeal holding that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and first appellate court were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from any perversity or jurisdictional error. (Paras 1-10) B) Property Law - Declaration and Injunction - Burden of Proof - The plaintiffs failed to prove their title and possession over the suit property. The courts below concurrently held that the plaintiffs did not establish their case. The High Court affirmed that the findings were not perverse. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, raises any substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, confirming the concurrent findings of the courts below. No substantial question of law arose.
Law Points
- Second appeal
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- Section 100 CPC
- interference limited to perversity or jurisdictional error
