Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal filed by the appellants (original plaintiffs) against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court, which had affirmed the trial court's dismissal of their suit. The appellants had filed a suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction in respect of certain immovable property. The trial court, after considering the evidence, dismissed the suit holding that the appellants failed to prove their title and possession over the suit property. The first appellate court, on appeal, concurred with the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, the appellants filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court, after hearing the parties, noted that the appeal did not involve any substantial question of law. The court observed that the findings of fact recorded by the courts below were concurrent and based on appreciation of evidence. The appellants could not demonstrate any perversity or jurisdictional error in the findings. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the courts below. The court reiterated the settled principle that in a second appeal, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are shown to be perverse or based on no evidence.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court reiterated that in a second appeal, interference with concurrent findings of fact is permissible only if the findings are perverse or based on no evidence or suffer from a jurisdictional error. The appellants failed to demonstrate any such error. (Paras 1-3) B) Property Law - Suit for Declaration and Injunction - Burden of Proof - The appellants, as plaintiffs, bore the burden to prove their title and possession over the suit property. The trial court and first appellate court concurrently found that the appellants failed to discharge this burden. (Paras 1-3) C) Civil Procedure - Concurrent Findings - No Interference - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The High Court held that since the findings of fact were concurrent and not shown to be perverse, no substantial question of law arose. The second appeal was dismissed. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, raises 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, upholding the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court. No substantial question of law was found to exist.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- concurrent findings of fact
- no substantial question of law
- interference limited to perversity or jurisdictional error
