Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Maruti A/F Laxman Patil, filed a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2006 passed in R.A.No.34/2004 by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Hukeri, which dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 14.06.2004 passed in O.S.No.641/1997 by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Sankeshwara. The suit was for declaration of title and injunction in respect of certain property. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed the dismissal. The appellant contended that the findings of the courts below were perverse and against the evidence on record. The respondents supported the concurrent findings. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found that the courts below had appreciated the evidence and recorded concurrent findings of fact. The court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the second appeal, as the findings were not perverse or illegal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The appellant challenged concurrent findings of fact in a suit for declaration and injunction. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration as the findings were based on appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. The appeal was dismissed. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and decree of the courts below suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the courts below with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Substantial question of law
- Section 100 CPC
- Interference with concurrent findings
