Case Note & Summary
The case involves two second appeals filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, South Goa, Margao, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 12/2003 and Regular Civil Appeal No. 13/2003. The appellants, who were the original plaintiffs, had filed suits for declaration of title and possession over a property in Ponda, Goa. The trial court dismissed the suits, and the lower appellate court confirmed the dismissal. The appellants then filed the present second appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court framed substantial questions of law regarding whether the lower appellate court's findings were perverse or based on no evidence. After hearing the parties, the High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from any perversity. The court noted that the appellants failed to prove their title and possession over the suit property. The documentary evidence relied upon by the appellants was found insufficient to establish their claim. The High Court, therefore, dismissed both second appeals, upholding the judgments of the courts below. The court reiterated the limited scope of interference in second appeals under Section 100 CPC, emphasizing that the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The appellants failed to demonstrate any perversity or error of law in the findings of the lower appellate court. (Paras 1-10) B) Property Law - Title and Possession - Burden of Proof - The appellants, claiming title and possession over the suit property, failed to discharge the burden of proof. The courts below correctly held that the documentary evidence produced by the appellants did not establish their title. (Paras 5-8) C) Evidence Act - Appreciation of Evidence - Concurrent Findings - The High Court in second appeal cannot re-appreciate evidence unless the findings are shown to be perverse. The appellants did not point out any material irregularity or illegality in the appreciation of evidence by the lower appellate court. (Paras 9-10)
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. The judgments and decrees of the lower appellate court are confirmed.
Law Points
- Second appeal
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- perversity
- no evidence
- interference by High Court
- Section 100 CPC
