High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Second Appeal in Suit for Declaration and Injunction — Concurrent Findings of Fact Not Interfered With Under Section 100 CPC. The appellant failed to prove title and possession, and no substantial question of law was raised.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU

Admin

2026-05-18 12:30:31

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The case involves a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) against the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2006 passed by the Principal District Judge, Mandya, in R.A. No. 186/2004, which dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 16.7.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Maddur, in O.S. No. 122/2000. The original plaintiff, M.G. Purushotham (since deceased, represented by legal representatives), filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. The defendants, including N.K. Srinivasan (since deceased, represented by legal representatives) and the Tahsildar, Maddur Taluk, contested the suit. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove his title and possession. The first appellate court confirmed this finding. In the second appeal, the appellant argued that the lower courts erred in appreciating the evidence and that the findings were perverse. The High Court, after hearing the counsel for the appellant and perusing the records, found that the concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and did not suffer from any perversity or error of law. The court noted that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court were confirmed. The court also observed that the appeal was pending since 2007 and that the legal representatives of the deceased parties had been brought on record.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Concurrent Findings of Fact - The High Court in a second appeal cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. The appellant failed to demonstrate any substantial question of law. (Paras 1-4)

B) Property Law - Declaration and Injunction - Suit for Declaration of Title and Permanent Injunction - The plaintiff sought declaration of title and injunction in respect of suit property. Both courts below concurrently held that the plaintiff failed to prove title and possession. The High Court affirmed the dismissal. (Paras 1-4)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court suffer from any perversity or error of law warranting interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Final Decision

The second appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 10.11.2006 passed in R.A. No. 186/2004 by the Principal District Judge, Mandya, confirming the judgment and decree dated 16.7.2004 passed in O.S. No. 122/2000 by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Maddur, are confirmed.

Law Points

Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
concurrent findings of fact
no substantial question of law
interference limited to perversity or error of law

Case Details

2024 LawText (KAR) (02) 36

R.S.A. No. 498/2007 (DEC/INJ)

2024-02-16

H.P. Sandesh

Sri G.B. Nandish Gowda (for appellants), Sri Sagar B.B. and Sri Sathish M. Doddamani (for respondents 1(d, e, g)), Smt. M.V. Adhithi (AGA for respondent 2)

M.G. Purushotham (since dead by LRs: Smt. Lalitha, Sri P. Lokesh, Sri P. Raghavan, Smt. P. Sashikala)

N.K. Srinivasan (since dead by LRs: Smt. Sowbhagya, Sri N.S. Satish, Sri N.S. Harish, Smt. Saraswathi, Sri N.S. Somashekar, Sri Chandrashekar, Smt. Geetha) and The Tahsildar, Maddur Taluk

Nature of Litigation

Second appeal against concurrent findings in a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought to set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court and restore the suit

Filing Reason

Appellant aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit and the first appeal

Previous Decisions

Trial court dismissed O.S. No. 122/2000 on 16.7.2004; first appellate court dismissed R.A. No. 186/2004 on 10.11.2006

Issues

Whether the concurrent findings of fact are perverse or suffer from any error of law

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the lower courts erred in appreciating the evidence and that the findings are perverse

Ratio Decidendi

In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. The appellant failed to raise any substantial question of law.

Judgment Excerpts

This R.S.A. is filed u/s. 100 of CPC against the judgement & decree dated 10.11.2006 passed in R.A.No. 186/2004 on the file of the Prl. District Judge, Mandya, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgement and decree dated 16.7.2004 passed in O.S.No. 122/2000 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Maddur.

Procedural History

Original suit O.S. No. 122/2000 filed by M.G. Purushotham for declaration and injunction was dismissed by Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Maddur on 16.7.2004. Appeal R.A. No. 186/2004 was dismissed by Principal District Judge, Mandya on 10.11.2006. Second appeal R.S.A. No. 498/2007 was filed in the High Court of Karnataka and dismissed on 16.2.2024.