Case Note & Summary
The case involves two second appeals filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, arising from a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The appellants (original plaintiffs) claimed ownership of a suit property based on a registered sale deed and alleged possession. The respondents (original defendants) contested the title and possession. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title and possession. The first appellate court confirmed this decision. In the second appeals, the appellants argued that the courts below erred in appreciating the evidence and that substantial questions of law arose. The High Court examined the concurrent findings and found that they were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. The court reiterated that under Section 100 CPC, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. Since no substantial question of law was involved, both appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Substantial Question of Law - The appellants challenged concurrent findings of fact in a suit for declaration and injunction regarding ownership of suit property. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose as the findings were based on appreciation of evidence and not perverse. The appeals were dismissed. (Paras 1-10) B) Property Law - Declaration of Title - Burden of Proof - The plaintiffs claimed ownership based on a registered sale deed and possession. The defendants denied title. The trial court and first appellate court concurrently found that the plaintiffs failed to prove title and possession. The High Court upheld these findings as they were not shown to be perverse or contrary to law. (Paras 5-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeals involve any substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below.
Final Decision
Both second appeals are dismissed with 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 jurisdictional error
