High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Suit — Concurrent Findings of Fact Not Interfered With Under Section 100 CPC. Suit for partition dismissed as plaintiff failed to prove joint family property and possession; no substantial question of law arose.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: DHARWAD

Admin

2026-05-18 15:52:29

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The present second appeal was filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) by the defendant No.1 challenging the judgment and decree dated 05.12.2017 passed in R.A.No.76/2017 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhatkal (First Appellate Court) and the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2017 passed in O.S.No.6/2015 by the Additional Civil Judge, Bhatkal (Trial Court). The suit for partition filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the Trial Court, and the First Appellate Court confirmed that dismissal. The appellant-defendant contended that the courts below erred in dismissing the suit. The High Court, after hearing the counsel for the appellant and perusing the records, found that the concurrent findings of fact were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from any perversity or illegality. The court noted that the plaintiff failed to prove that the suit property was joint family property and that she was in joint possession. Consequently, no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the second appeal. The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the courts below were confirmed.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - The High Court dismissed the second appeal as no substantial question of law arose; the concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and first appellate court were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from any perversity or illegality. (Paras 1-10)

B) Partition - Joint Family Property - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff failed to prove that the suit property was joint family property and that she was in joint possession; the courts below rightly dismissed the suit for partition. (Paras 3-9)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the judgment and decree of the courts below suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Final Decision

The second appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 05.12.2017 passed in R.A.No.76/2017 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhatkal, confirming the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2017 passed in O.S.No.6/2015 by the Additional Civil Judge, Bhatkal, are confirmed.

Law Points

Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
substantial question of law
concurrent findings of fact
partition suit
burden of proof
joint family property

Case Details

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8497

RSA No. 100164 of 2018 (PAR-)

2024-06-21

C.M. Poonacha

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8497

K.L. Patil, S.S. Beturmath (for appellant); Dinesh M. Kulkarni (for respondent No.1)

Nagappa S/o Jatta Naik

Smt. Madevi W/o Manjunath Naik and Others

Nature of Litigation

Second appeal against concurrent dismissal of partition suit

Remedy Sought

Appellant-defendant sought to set aside the judgments and decrees of the courts below and to have the suit for partition decreed

Filing Reason

The appellant-defendant challenged the dismissal of the partition suit by the trial court and the confirmation thereof by the first appellate court

Previous Decisions

Trial Court dismissed the suit for partition (O.S.No.6/2015) on 15.03.2017; First Appellate Court confirmed the dismissal (R.A.No.76/2017) on 05.12.2017

Issues

Whether the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below are perverse or illegal? Whether any substantial question of law arises for consideration in the second appeal?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the courts below erred in dismissing the suit for partition. Respondent supported the concurrent findings and argued that no substantial question of law arose.

Ratio Decidendi

In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The plaintiff failed to prove joint family property and joint possession, and no substantial question of law arose.

Judgment Excerpts

The present second appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the defendant No.1 challenging the judgment and decree dated 05.12.2017 passed in R.A.No.76/2017... The suit for partition has been dismissed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court has confirmed the same. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal.

Procedural History

The plaintiff filed O.S.No.6/2015 for partition before the Additional Civil Judge, Bhatkal, which was dismissed on 15.03.2017. The plaintiff appealed in R.A.No.76/2017 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhatkal, which was dismissed on 05.12.2017. The defendant No.1 (appellant herein) filed the present second appeal under Section 100 CPC before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench.