Case Note & Summary
The present Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was filed by the appellants (original plaintiffs) against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Devanahalli, in R.A. No. 13/2012, which confirmed the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Devanahalli, in O.S. No. 106/2006. The appellants had filed the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property, claiming that it was joint family property and that they were in possession. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the property was joint family property or that they had any title. The first appellate court confirmed this finding. In the second appeal, the appellants contended that the lower courts erred in not appreciating the evidence and that substantial questions of law arose. The High Court, after hearing the counsel, held that the concurrent findings of fact were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. The court reiterated that under Section 100 CPC, the High Court cannot interfere with findings of fact unless they are shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. The court also noted that there is no presumption of joint family property and the burden was on the plaintiffs to prove their case, which they failed to discharge. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - The court held that a second appeal lies only on substantial questions of law and not on questions of fact. The concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts that the suit property was not joint family property and that the plaintiffs failed to prove title were based on evidence and not perverse. Hence, no interference was warranted. (Paras 1-10) B) Property Law - Joint Family Property - Presumption - The court observed that there is no presumption that a property held by a member of a Hindu joint family is joint family property. The burden lies on the party asserting it to prove that the property was acquired with joint family funds or was thrown into the common hotchpotch. (Paras 5-8) C) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Title - The plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden of proving their title over the suit property. The lower courts correctly held that the plaintiffs did not produce sufficient evidence to establish that the property was joint family property or that they had any right, title, or interest. (Paras 6-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, raises any substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the first appellate court.
Final Decision
The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 30.11.2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Devanahalli, in R.A. No. 13/2012, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Devanahalli, in O.S. No. 106/2006, are confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC limited to substantial questions of law
- Concurrent findings of fact not interfered with unless perverse
- Burden of proof on plaintiff to establish title
- Joint family property presumption not automatic
