Case Note & Summary
The present Regular Second Appeal was filed by the defendants (appellants) against the judgment and decree dated 04.03.2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Afzalpur, in R.A. No. 18/2014, which confirmed the judgment and decree dated 02.04.2014 passed by the Civil Judge, Afzalpur, in O.S. No. 83/2012. The suit was filed by the plaintiff (respondent) seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property, claiming it to be joint family property. The defendants contested the suit, contending that the property had already been partitioned by a final decree in an earlier suit, O.S. No. 83/2012, between the same parties. The trial court, after considering the evidence, dismissed the suit holding that the suit was not maintainable in view of the earlier final decree. The first appellate court affirmed this finding. Aggrieved, the defendants filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found that the courts below had concurrently held that the suit was not maintainable due to the earlier final decree. The High Court noted that no substantial question of law arose for consideration and that the findings of fact were based on proper appreciation of evidence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the concurrent findings of the courts below.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Res Judicata - Final Decree - Maintainability of Subsequent Suit - The suit for partition and separate possession was held not maintainable as the property had already been partitioned by a final decree in an earlier suit between the same parties. The courts below concurrently dismissed the suit, and the High Court found no substantial question of law to interfere under Section 100 CPC. (Paras 1-10)
B) Civil Procedure - Regular Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Interference with Concurrent Findings - The High Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and first appellate court, as no substantial question of law arose. The appeal was dismissed. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit for partition and separate possession is maintainable in view of the earlier final decree proceedings in O.S. No. 83/2012?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court that the suit for partition was not maintainable due to the earlier final decree.
Law Points
- Res judicata
- Partition suit
- Final decree
- Maintainability
- Concurrent findings
- Section 100 CPC
Case Details
2024 LawText (KAR) (02) 61
RSA No. 200252 of 2017 (PAR)
Sri. Chaitanyakumar C. M. (for appellants), Sri. Mahadev S. Patil (for respondent)
Dhanayya S/o Karabasayya Gacchinmath (dead by LRs) and others
Chandrashekhar S/o Karabasayya Gacchinmath
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Regular Second Appeal against concurrent findings in a partition suit.
Remedy Sought
Appellants (defendants) sought to set aside the judgments and decrees of the trial court and first appellate court and dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiff.
Filing Reason
The defendants were aggrieved by the dismissal of their appeal by the first appellate court, which confirmed the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff's suit for partition.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court (Civil Judge, Afzalpur) dismissed O.S. No. 83/2012 on 02.04.2014. First Appellate Court (Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Afzalpur) dismissed R.A. No. 18/2014 on 04.03.2017, confirming the trial court's judgment.
Issues
Whether the suit for partition and separate possession is maintainable in view of the earlier final decree proceedings?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the suit was not maintainable as the property had already been partitioned by a final decree in an earlier suit.
Respondent contended that the suit was maintainable and the property was still joint family property.
Ratio Decidendi
A subsequent suit for partition is not maintainable when the property has already been partitioned by a final decree in an earlier suit between the same parties. The concurrent findings of fact by the courts below, based on proper appreciation of evidence, cannot be interfered with under Section 100 CPC unless a substantial question of law arises.
Judgment Excerpts
The present appeal is filed by the defendants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 04.03.2017 passed in R.A.No.18/2014...
The essential facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession...
The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence dismissed the suit...
The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court...
This Court is of the opinion that there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal...
Procedural History
The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 83/2012 before the Civil Judge, Afzalpur, seeking partition and separate possession. The trial court dismissed the suit on 02.04.2014. The defendants filed R.A. No. 18/2014 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Afzalpur, which was dismissed on 04.03.2017. The defendants then filed the present Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC before the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, which was dismissed on 28.02.2024.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
