Case Note & Summary
The present regular second appeal was filed by the defendants (appellants) under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.08.2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Humnabad in O.S.No.54/2011, which was confirmed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bidar, sitting at Basavakalyan, vide judgment and decree dated 16.10.2015 in R.A.No.86/2013. The original suit was filed by the plaintiff (respondent) for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, holding that he had proved his title and possession over the suit property. The first appellate court confirmed the said judgment and decree. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the defendants preferred the present second appeal. The High Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following substantial question of law: "Whether the judgment and decree passed by the courts below suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference under Section 100 of CPC?" Upon re-appreciating the evidence on record, the High Court found that the courts below had properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence, including the sale deed and revenue records, and had concurrently held that the plaintiff was in possession and had title over the suit property. The High Court noted that the findings of fact recorded by the courts below were based on evidence and were not perverse. It further observed that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the judgments and decrees of the courts below were upheld.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Regular Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - The appeal was filed by the defendants against concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and first appellate court in a suit for declaration and injunction. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises for consideration as the findings of fact are based on proper appreciation of evidence and are not perverse. The appeal was dismissed. (Paras 1-10) B) Property Law - Declaration of Title and Injunction - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff sought declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of suit property. The courts below concurrently held that the plaintiff had proved his title and possession. The High Court affirmed that the burden of proof was correctly placed and discharged by the plaintiff. (Paras 3-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and decree passed by the courts below suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the regular second appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arises for consideration. The judgments and decrees of the courts below were upheld.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Substantial question of law
- Section 100 CPC
- Regular second appeal
- Interference with findings of fact
