Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a regular second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 24.07.2014 passed in R.A.No.179/2012 by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Belagavi, and the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2012 passed in O.S.No.119/2006 by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Saundatti. The appellant, Basavanneppa (since deceased, represented by his legal representatives), had filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the suit property claiming it to be joint family property. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed the dismissal. The appellant then filed the present second appeal. The High Court, after hearing the counsel for the appellant and perusing the records, found that the courts below had concurrently held that the appellant failed to prove that the suit property was joint family property. The High Court noted that no substantial question of law arose for consideration and that the findings of fact were not perverse. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Regular Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Interference with concurrent findings - The High Court in a regular 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 1-10)
B) Property Law - Partition - Joint Family Property - Burden of proof - The plaintiff must prove that the suit property is joint family property. In this case, the appellant did not adduce sufficient evidence to establish that the property was ancestral or joint family property. (Paras 5-8)
C) Evidence - Appreciation of Evidence - Concurrent findings - The trial court and first appellate court had correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence. The High Court found no reason to differ from their conclusions. (Paras 6-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and decree passed by the courts below are perverse and require interference in a regular second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the regular second appeal, confirming the judgments and decrees of the trial court and the first appellate court. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Partition
- Burden of proof
- Joint family property
- Concurrent findings
- Regular second appeal
- Section 100 CPC
Case Details
2024 LawText (KAR) (09) 17
RSA No. 100868 of 2014 (PAR)
Sri. Ravi S. Balikai (for appellant), Sri. S.G. Nadoor (for R1 A to D), Sri. Santosh B. Rawoot (for R3 to R5), Sri. R.A. Purohit (for impleading applicants 6 and 7)
Basavannep S/o. Moogappa Udakeri (since deceased by LRs: Smt. Gourawa, Smt. Nirmala, Neelakanth)
Somappa Mugappa Udakeri (since deceased by LRs: Smt. Mahadevi, Smt. Shridevi, Anand, Santosh) and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for partition and separate possession of immovable property.
Remedy Sought
The appellant sought partition of the suit property and separate possession of his share, claiming it to be joint family property.
Filing Reason
The appellant claimed that the suit property was ancestral joint family property and that he was entitled to a share.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Saundatti) dismissed the suit in O.S.No.119/2006 on 30.06.2012. The first appellate court (II Additional Sessions Judge, Belagavi) dismissed the appeal in R.A.No.179/2012 on 24.07.2014, confirming the trial court's judgment.
Issues
Whether the suit property is joint family property entitling the appellant to a share?
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below are perverse and require interference in a regular second appeal?
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant argued that the courts below erred in not decreeing the suit and that the property was joint family property.
The respondents supported the concurrent findings and argued that no substantial question of law arose.
Ratio Decidendi
In a regular 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
The appellant failed to prove that the suit property is joint family property.
The concurrent findings of the courts below are not perverse and do not warrant interference.
Procedural History
The appellant filed O.S.No.119/2006 for partition before the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Saundatti, which was dismissed on 30.06.2012. The appellant appealed to the II Additional Sessions Judge, Belagavi, in R.A.No.179/2012, which was dismissed on 24.07.2014. The appellant then filed the present regular second appeal under Section 100 CPC before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, which was dismissed on 04.09.2024.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
