Case Note & Summary
The appellants, legal representatives of the original plaintiffs, filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Sirsi, in R.A.No.16/1997, which dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 18.12.1996 passed by the Addl. Munsiff, Sirsi, in O.S.No.170/1988. The original suit was filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of certain immovable property. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title and possession. The lower appellate court concurred with these findings. In the second appeal, the appellants contended that the courts below erred in appreciating the evidence and that substantial questions of law arose. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that no substantial question of law was involved, as the findings of fact were concurrent and not perverse. The court observed that the appellants failed to point out any perversity or error of law in the impugned judgments. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed, confirming the dismissal of the suit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - Concurrent Findings - The High Court in a second appeal cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The appellants failed to demonstrate any substantial question of law. (Paras 1-10) B) Property Law - Suit for Declaration and Injunction - Burden of Proof - The plaintiffs, claiming title and possession, must prove their case. The courts below found that the plaintiffs failed to establish title and possession over the suit property. (Paras 2-8) C) Limitation - Adverse Possession - Article 65 of Limitation Act, 1963 - The plaintiffs' suit for possession based on title was dismissed as time-barred, as they failed to prove possession within 12 years. (Paras 5-7)
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 second appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court dated 11.08.2006 in R.A.No.16/1997 confirming the trial court's decree dated 18.12.1996 in O.S.No.170/1988 are upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- interference limited to perversity
- burden of proof in suit for declaration and injunction
- limitation for adverse possession
