Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court which confirmed the trial court's dismissal of their suit. The appellants claimed title and possession over certain immovable property, but both lower courts found that they failed to prove their title. The High Court, in second appeal, examined whether any substantial question of law arose. It noted that the findings of fact were concurrent and not shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. The court reiterated the limited scope of interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and dismissed the appeal, upholding the concurrent findings.
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. It held that the findings of fact recorded by the trial court and first appellate court were concurrent and not perverse, and thus no interference was warranted. (Paras 1-10) B) Property Law - Title and Possession - Concurrent Findings - The dispute pertained to title and possession of immovable property. The courts below concurrently found that the appellants failed to prove their title. The High Court declined to re-appreciate evidence in second appeal. (Paras 5-8)
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 High Court dismissed the second appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arose and the concurrent findings of fact did not warrant interference.
Law Points
- Second appeal
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- interference limited to perversity
- Section 100 CPC
