Case Note & Summary
The present second appeal arises out of a civil suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction filed by the original plaintiffs (now appellants) against the defendants (respondents) in respect of agricultural land. The plaintiffs claimed that they were the owners and in possession of the suit property, and the defendants had no right or interest therein. The trial court, after considering the evidence, dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title and possession. The first appellate court confirmed the dismissal. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found that the findings of fact recorded by the courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. No substantial question of law arose for consideration. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - The High Court in second appeal 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) Property Law - Suit for Declaration and Injunction - Burden of Proof - Plaintiff must prove title and possession. Failure to produce cogent evidence leads to dismissal. (Paras 5-8) C) Evidence Act - Appreciation of Evidence - Concurrent findings of fact by trial court and first appellate court are binding in second appeal unless shown to be perverse. (Paras 7-9)
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 second appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- concurrent findings of fact
- no substantial question of law
- interference limited to perversity or error of law
- burden of proof on plaintiff to prove title and possession
- appreciation of evidence by trial court and first appellate court not to be re-opened in second appeal.
