Case Note & Summary
This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) arises from a decree passed in Final Decree Proceeding No. 11/1999, which was confirmed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Shimoga, in Regular Appeal No. 122/2013. The appellants, Veerabhadrappa, Shivamurthy, Manjappa, and Maheshwarappa, are the respondents in the final decree proceeding. The respondents are the legal representatives of the original plaintiff, Channappa Gowda (deceased). The suit for partition, O.S. No. 1768/1989, resulted in a preliminary decree. Subsequently, the parties entered into a compromise in RSA No. 1314/2007, and the preliminary decree was modified on 26.07.2010 in terms of the compromise. Thereafter, the final decree proceeding was initiated. The trial court in FDP No. 11/1999 accepted the scheme of partition as per the modified decree. The appellants challenged the final decree in Regular Appeal No. 122/2013, which was dismissed. In this second appeal, the appellants contended that the final decree proceeding did not properly implement the modified decree. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found that the final decree proceeding correctly gave effect to the compromise decree. The Court held that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Final Decree Proceeding - Scope - The second appeal arises from a decree in a final decree proceeding confirmed in a regular appeal under Section 96 CPC. The Court held that no substantial question of law arises for consideration as the final decree proceeding merely implemented the modified preliminary decree passed in terms of a compromise in an earlier second appeal. The appeal was dismissed. (Paras 1-5) B) Civil Procedure - Compromise Decree - Modification of Preliminary Decree - Final Decree - The preliminary decree in O.S.No.1768/1989 was modified on 26.07.2010 pursuant to a compromise in RSA No.1314/2007. The final decree proceeding in FDP No.11/1999 accepted the scheme of partition in accordance with the modified decree. The Court held that the final decree proceeding correctly gave effect to the compromise decree. (Paras 3-4) C) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - The Court found that the appellants failed to raise any substantial question of law. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and decree passed in the final decree proceeding and confirmed in the regular appeal suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- final decree proceeding
- scope of second appeal
- compromise decree
- modification of preliminary decree
- partition suit
- no substantial question of law
