Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Gangappa, filed a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the first appellate court which dismissed his suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction over the suit schedule property. The appellant claimed that the property was owned by his maternal grandfather, Ganganna, who had only one daughter, the appellant's mother, and thus the appellant inherited the property. The trial court and the first appellate court concurrently found that the appellant failed to prove his title. The High Court, while admitting the appeal, examined whether any substantial question of law arose. The court noted that the findings of the courts below were based on appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. The appellant could not produce any documentary evidence to establish his relationship with Ganganna or the title. The High Court held that no substantial question of law was involved and dismissed the appeal, upholding the concurrent findings.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - The High Court in a second appeal can only interfere if there is a substantial question of law. Concurrent findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence cannot be re-opened unless perverse or based on no evidence. (Paras 1-2)
B) Property Law - Declaration of Title - Burden of Proof - Plaintiff must prove title by clear and cogent evidence. Mere assertion of inheritance from maternal grandfather without documentary proof is insufficient. (Para 3)
C) Property Law - Permanent Injunction - Consequential Relief - Where plaintiff fails to establish title, the relief of permanent injunction cannot be granted. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below dismissing the suit for declaration and permanent injunction suffer from any perversity or raise a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the courts below. No substantial question of law was involved.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- concurrent findings of fact
- substantial question of law
- burden of proof
- title by inheritance
Case Details
2022 LawText (KAR) (10) 22
RSA No.200352/2022 (DEC/INJ)
Sri Harshavardhan R. Malipatil (for appellant), Sri Sachin M. Mahajan (for respondent)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC against concurrent dismissal of suit for declaration and permanent injunction.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to set aside the judgments of the lower courts and decree the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.
Filing Reason
Appellant claimed title over suit property through maternal grandfather Ganganna and sought declaration and injunction against respondent.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court (II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC-IV, Raichur) dismissed O.S. No.195/2012 on 24.03.2021; First Appellate Court (Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Raichur) dismissed R.A. No.8/2021.
Issues
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below are perverse or raise a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the courts below erred in dismissing the suit despite evidence of inheritance.
Respondent supported the concurrent findings and argued no substantial question of law arises.
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 appellant failed to prove title, and no substantial question of law arose.
Judgment Excerpts
The captioned second appeal is filed by unsuccessful plaintiff questioning the concurrent findings of the Courts below, wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking relief of declaration and permanent injunction is dismissed.
For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.
The plaintiff has filed the present suit asserting title over the suit schedule property.
Procedural History
The plaintiff filed O.S. No.195/2012 before the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC-IV, Raichur, which was dismissed on 24.03.2021. The plaintiff appealed in R.A. No.8/2021 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Raichur, which was also dismissed. The plaintiff then filed the present Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC before the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
