Case Note & Summary
The Regular Second Appeal was filed by the legal representatives of the original plaintiff, Alisab, against the judgment and decree dated 03.01.2006 passed by the Fast Track Court-V, Gulbarga in R.A.No.535/2004, which reversed the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2002 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn), Afzalpur in O.S.No.43/2000. The original plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of suit property measuring 3 acres 10 guntas in Sy.No. 19/2 of Baloorgi village, Afzalpur taluk. The trial court decreed the suit, but the lower appellate court reversed the decree and dismissed the suit. The High Court, in the second appeal under Section 100 CPC, held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The court observed that the lower appellate court had correctly appreciated the evidence and found that the plaintiff failed to prove his title and possession. The plaintiff relied on certified copies of sale deeds, but the original title deeds were not produced. The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the judgment of the lower appellate court.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - The High Court held that in a second appeal, interference with concurrent findings of fact is not warranted unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The appellant failed to demonstrate any substantial question of law. (Paras 1-10) B) Property Law - Declaration of Title and Injunction - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff must prove his title and possession. In the instant case, the plaintiff failed to produce cogent evidence to establish his title over the suit property. The lower appellate court's reversal of the trial court's decree was based on proper appreciation of evidence. (Paras 5-9) C) Evidence Act - Admissibility of Documents - Certified Copies - The court noted that the plaintiff relied on certified copies of sale deeds, but the original title deeds were not produced. The lower appellate court rightly held that the plaintiff failed to prove his title. (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court reversing the trial court's decree calls for interference in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal, affirming the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court dated 03.01.2006 in R.A.No.535/2004.
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 establish title and possession
