Case Note & Summary
The case is a second appeal arising from a suit for partition and separate possession filed by the original plaintiffs (respondents) against the original defendants (appellants). The trial court decreed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed the decree. The appellants, being the legal representatives of the original defendant No.2, filed this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The core issue was whether the courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence regarding the shares of the parties in the suit property. The appellants contended that the findings were erroneous and that the property was not joint family property. The respondents supported the concurrent findings. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found that the findings of fact recorded by both courts were based on evidence and were not perverse. No substantial question of law arose for consideration. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed, and the decree of the courts below was upheld.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court examined whether the second appeal raised any substantial question of law. Held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeal involves 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. The decree of the courts below is confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second appeal
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- interference limited to perversity
- Section 100 CPC
