Case Note & Summary
The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of three agricultural properties. He claimed to have purchased items 1 and 3 from the defendant under a registered sale deed dated 24.10.1988 for Rs.38,000/-. The defendant denied the sale and contended that the plaintiff was never in possession. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove his title and possession. The first appellate court confirmed the dismissal. In the second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court found no substantial question of law as the findings of fact were concurrent and not perverse. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - The High Court in a second appeal can interfere only if there is a substantial question of law. Concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and first appellate court cannot be disturbed unless shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. (Paras 1-2)
B) Property Law - Title and Possession - Burden of Proof - In a suit for declaration of title and injunction, the plaintiff must prove his title and possession. Mere registration of a sale deed does not establish title unless the vendor's title is proved. (Paras 4-6)
C) Evidence Act - Proof of Documents - Registered Sale Deed - A registered sale deed is a piece of evidence but does not by itself prove the vendor's title. The plaintiff must adduce evidence to show that the vendor had a valid title to the property. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and decree of the courts below dismissing the suit for declaration of title and injunction suffer from any perversity or error of law warranting interference in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, confirming the judgments of the trial court and first appellate court, thereby dismissing the suit for declaration of title and injunction.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- concurrent findings of fact
- no substantial question of law
- interference limited to perversity or error of law
- burden of proof on plaintiff to prove title and possession
- registered sale deed does not automatically confer title without proof of vendor's title.
Case Details
2022 LawText (KAR) (08) 35
RSA No. 1978/2007 (DEC/INJ)
Sri D.P.Ambekar (for appellant), Sri Manvendra Reddy (for respondent)
Sri. Veeranna S/o Sangappa Biradar
Sri. Basanagouda S/o Basappa Meti
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeal against concurrent dismissal of suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction.
Remedy Sought
Appellant/plaintiff sought to set aside the judgments of the lower courts and decree the suit for declaration of title and injunction.
Filing Reason
Appellant claimed to have purchased suit properties from respondent under a registered sale deed but was denied possession and title.
Previous Decisions
Trial court dismissed suit O.S.No.219/2001 on 10.02.2005; First appellate court dismissed appeal R.A.No.57/2005 on 10.04.2007, confirming the trial court's judgment.
Issues
Whether the plaintiff proved his title and possession over the suit properties?
Whether the concurrent findings of fact are perverse or suffer from any error of law?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the registered sale deed dated 24.10.1988 proves his title and that he was in possession.
Respondent contended that the sale was not genuine and that the plaintiff never obtained possession.
Ratio Decidendi
In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The plaintiff failed to prove his title and possession, and the registered sale deed alone does not establish title without proof of the vendor's title.
Judgment Excerpts
Present Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the Judgment and Decree dated 18.04.2007 passed by the Principal District Judge, Bijapur...
The suit properties are the immovable properties bearing: i) Survey No.133/1 measuring 2 acres 32 guntas; ii) Survey No.133/2 measuring 4 acres; iii) Survey No.134 measuring 6 acres 33 guntas...
Procedural History
The appellant/plaintiff filed O.S.No.219/2001 (old No.186/1996) for declaration of title and injunction. The trial court dismissed the suit on 10.02.2005. The appellant appealed to the Principal District Judge, Bijapur in R.A.No.57/2005, which was dismissed on 10.04.2007. The appellant then filed the present second appeal under Section 100 CPC before the High Court of Karnataka, which was dismissed on 04.08.2022.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
