Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Smt. Seetha S. Shetty, filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Udupi, in R.A. No. 33/2015, which confirmed the dismissal of her suit O.S. No. 107/2012 by the Principal Civil Judge, Udupi. The appellant had sued for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of certain immovable property. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the appellant failed to prove her title and possession. The first appellate court concurred with these findings. In the second appeal, the appellant contended that the courts below had misappreciated the evidence and that the findings were perverse. The High Court examined the records and found that the findings of fact were based on proper appreciation of evidence. The court noted that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, as the appellant merely sought re-appreciation of evidence, which is not permissible in a second appeal. Consequently, 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 if a substantial question of law is involved. Concurrent findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence cannot be interfered with unless perverse or based on no evidence. The appellant failed to demonstrate any perversity or error of law. (Paras 1-5) B) Property Law - Suit for Declaration and Injunction - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff claimed title based on a gift deed and sale deed. The trial court and first appellate court concurrently found that the plaintiff failed to prove title and possession. The High Court upheld these findings as they were not shown to be perverse. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeal involves any substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings of the courts below.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, confirming the concurrent findings of the courts below. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second appeal
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- perversity
- interference limited to substantial questions of law
