Case Note & Summary
The case involves a property dispute where the appellant, Xec Mohidin (since deceased, represented by his heirs), filed a second appeal against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court which affirmed the trial court's dismissal of his suit. The appellant claimed title and possession over a certain property, but the courts below found that he failed to prove his case. The High Court, in second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, examined whether any substantial question of law arose. The court noted that the findings of fact by the lower appellate court were based on evidence and were not perverse. The appellant could not demonstrate any error of law or fact that would warrant interference. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed, upholding the concurrent findings that the appellant had no title or possession over the suit property.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The High Court in second appeal can interfere with concurrent findings of fact only if they are perverse or based on no evidence. The court found no such perversity and dismissed the appeal. (Paras 1-10) B) Property Law - Title and Possession - Burden of Proof - The appellant failed to prove his title and possession over the suit property. The concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court were upheld. (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 second appeal is dismissed. The concurrent findings of the courts below are upheld.
Law Points
- Second appeal
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- perversity
- no evidence
- interference by High Court
- Section 100 CPC
