Case Note & Summary
The appellants, original plaintiffs, filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the first appellate court dismissing their suit for declaration and injunction. The suit sought a declaration that a sale deed dated 11/10/2005 executed by respondent No. 2 in favor of respondent No. 1 regarding plot No. 111148 was illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs, along with a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing their possession. The trial court, in Spl.C.S. No. 56/2006, dismissed the suit on 28/12/2009, and the first appellate court, in R.C.A. No. 163 of 2012, affirmed the dismissal on 08/08/2013. The plaintiffs argued that the sale deed was invalid and that they were in possession of the suit plot. However, the courts below found that the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession over the suit plot on the date of the sale deed or that the sale deed was illegal. The High Court, after hearing counsel for both sides, held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the second appeal. The concurrent findings of fact were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decisions of the lower courts.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - Concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless perverse or based on no evidence - The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose as the findings of the courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse (Paras 1-10). B) Property Law - Sale Deed - Validity - Burden of Proof - Plaintiff must prove title and possession - The plaintiff failed to establish possession over the suit plot on the date of the sale deed or that the sale deed was illegal - The courts below correctly dismissed the suit as the plaintiff did not discharge the burden of proof (Paras 2-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the courts below erred in dismissing the suit for declaration and injunction, and whether any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the judgments and decrees of the courts below. No substantial question of law arose for consideration.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- interference limited to perversity
- burden of proof on plaintiff
- validity of sale deed
- possession and title.
