High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Second Appeal in Property Suit — Concurrent Findings of Fact Not Interfered With. Suit for declaration and injunction dismissed as plaintiffs failed to prove title and possession over suit property.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: DHARWAD

Admin

2026-05-18 12:16:32

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The case involves a Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 20.02.2007 passed in R.A.No.18/1998 by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Gokak, which confirmed the judgment and decree dated 27.06.1998 in O.S.No.563/1989 by the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Gokak. The appellants were the plaintiffs in the original suit, seeking a declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of certain immovable property. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title and possession. The first appellate court affirmed this decision. In the second appeal, the High Court examined whether any substantial question of law arose. The court noted that the findings of fact by the lower courts were concurrent and based on evidence. The appellants argued that the lower courts erred in appreciating the evidence, but the High Court found no perversity or error of law. The court held that in a second appeal, interference with concurrent findings of fact is limited to cases where the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. Since the plaintiffs failed to prove their case, the appeal was dismissed. The court also noted that the appellants had not raised any substantial question of law. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Concurrent Findings of Fact - The High Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and first appellate court, as no substantial question of law arose. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove title and possession over the suit property. (Paras 1-10)

B) Property Law - Suit for Declaration and Injunction - Burden of Proof - The plaintiffs, who sought declaration of title and injunction, failed to discharge the burden of proof. The courts below concurrently found that the plaintiffs did not establish their title or possession. (Paras 5-8)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court suffer from any perversity or error of law warranting interference in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC.

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgments of the lower courts. No order as to costs.

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) 49

RSA No. 1554 of 2007 (SP)

2024-02-29

Hanchate Sanjeevkumar

Sri Ravi S. Balikai

Anilkumar Chandulal Daptardar (since deceased by LRs) and others

Basavantappa Krishnappa Jagadale (since deceased by LRs) and others

Nature of Litigation

Regular Second Appeal against concurrent judgments dismissing suit for declaration and injunction.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought to set aside the judgments of the lower courts and dismiss the plaintiff's suit.

Filing Reason

Appellants challenged the concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and first appellate court dismissing their suit for declaration and injunction.

Previous Decisions

Trial court dismissed O.S.No.563/1989 on 27.06.1998; first appellate court dismissed R.A.No.18/1998 on 20.02.2007.

Issues

Whether the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts are perverse or suffer from any error of law. Whether any substantial question of law arises in the second appeal.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the lower courts erred in appreciating the evidence and that the findings are 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 interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The plaintiffs failed to prove title and possession, and no substantial question of law arose.

Judgment Excerpts

The present appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their title and possession over the suit property. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal.

Procedural History

Original Suit O.S.No.563/1989 filed by plaintiffs for declaration and injunction was dismissed by Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Gokak on 27.06.1998. Appeal R.A.No.18/1998 was dismissed by Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Gokak on 20.02.2007. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed the present Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench.