Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Basangouda, filed a suit for declaration and injunction in O.S. No. 20/2006 before the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Raichur, claiming that he had married Smt. Eshwaramma, daughter of Ramangouda, in the year 1960, and that the suit property belonged to him by virtue of that marriage. The trial court dismissed the suit on 06.03.2008, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove the marriage. The appellant then filed an appeal before the Prl. District Judge, Raichur in R.A. No. 28/2008, which was also dismissed on 24.11.2009, confirming the trial court's findings. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court, after hearing the matter, found that the courts below had concurrently held that the plaintiff did not prove his marriage with Eshwaramma. The High Court noted that the appellant had not raised any substantial question of law and that the concurrent findings of fact were based on proper appreciation of evidence. The court held that in a second appeal, it cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. Since the appellant failed to demonstrate any such perversity, the appeal was dismissed. The court also observed that the appellant's advocate was absent on the date of hearing, indicating lack of interest. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court were confirmed, and 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 in a second appeal cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The appellant failed to prove his marriage with Eshwaramma and consequently his right over the suit property. The courts below had concurrently held that the plaintiff did not prove the marriage. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence - Marriage Proof - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff who asserts a marriage must prove it by leading cogent evidence. In the absence of reliable evidence, the claim of marriage cannot be accepted. The trial court and first appellate court correctly appreciated the evidence and dismissed the suit. (Paras 3-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court confirming the trial court's dismissal of the suit for declaration and injunction suffers from any substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 24.11.2009 passed by the Prl. District Judge, Raichur in R.A. No. 28/2008, confirming the judgment and decree dated 06.03.2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Raichur in O.S. No. 20/2006, are confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- concurrent findings of fact
- substantial question of law
- burden of proof
- marriage proof
- declaration of rights
- injunction
