High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Second Appeal in Property Suit — Concurrent Findings of Fact Not Interfered With. Court holds that the second appellate court cannot re-appreciate evidence unless there is a perverse finding or substantial question of law under Section 100 of CPC.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU

Admin

2026-05-18 12:30:50

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, who was the defendant in the original suit, filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Arasikere in R.A.No.62/2002, which confirmed the decree of the trial court in O.S.No.169/1995. The suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff for declaration of title and possession over the suit property bearing Sy.No.19/7. The plaintiff claimed title based on a registered sale deed and alleged that the defendant had no right over the property. The defendant denied the plaintiff's title and claimed to be in adverse possession. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, and the first appellate court confirmed the decree. In the second appeal, the appellant argued that the lower appellate court had failed to properly appreciate the evidence and that the findings were perverse. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the second appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. The court noted that the findings of fact recorded by the courts below were concurrent and based on evidence. The court observed that the appellant had not demonstrated any perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the second appeal, confirming the decree of the lower appellate court. The court directed the parties to bear their own costs.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Concurrent Findings of Fact - The second appeal was filed against the concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court regarding the plaintiff's title and possession over the suit property. The High Court held that in the absence of any substantial question of law, the second appeal cannot be entertained and the concurrent findings of fact are binding. (Paras 1-10)

B) Property Law - Title and Possession - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff claimed title based on a registered sale deed and possession. The defendants denied title and set up adverse possession. The courts below concurrently held that the plaintiff proved title and that the defendants failed to prove adverse possession. The High Court affirmed that the findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence. (Paras 3-9)

C) Evidence Act - Adverse Possession - Burden of Proof - The defendants who set up adverse possession must prove it strictly. The courts below found that the defendants failed to establish the requisite animus and continuous possession for the statutory period. The High Court upheld this finding. (Paras 7-9)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court 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 second appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court. No order as to costs.

Law Points

Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
concurrent findings of fact
no substantial question of law
re-appreciation of evidence not permissible
perversity not established

Case Details

2024 LawText (KAR) (02) 42

R.S.A. NO.1037/2006 (DEC)

2024-02-16

H.P. Sandesh

Sri B.Roopesha (for appellant), Sri A.V.Gangadharappa (for respondents)

Ramaiah S/O Basappa

Basappa S/O Kadappa (since dead by LRs) and Sri C.V.Marulasiddappa

Nature of Litigation

Second appeal against concurrent findings in a suit for declaration of title and possession.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought to set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court confirming the trial court's decree in favor of the plaintiff.

Filing Reason

Appellant challenged the concurrent findings of fact on the ground that the lower appellate court failed to properly appreciate evidence and that the findings were perverse.

Previous Decisions

Trial court decreed the suit in O.S.No.169/1995; first appellate court confirmed the decree in R.A.No.62/2002.

Issues

Whether the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference under Section 100 CPC.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the lower appellate court failed to properly appreciate the evidence and that the findings were perverse. Respondents supported the concurrent findings and argued that no substantial question of law arises.

Ratio Decidendi

In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence unless there is a perverse finding or a substantial question of law. Concurrent findings of fact are binding and cannot be interfered with in the absence of any illegality or perversity.

Judgment Excerpts

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2005 passed in R.A.No.62/2002 by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Arasikere. The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Trial Court to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

Procedural History

The plaintiff filed O.S.No.169/1995 for declaration of title and possession. The trial court decreed the suit. The defendant appealed in R.A.No.62/2002, which was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Arasikere on 23.12.2005. The defendant then filed the present second appeal under Section 100 CPC.