Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Javarappa @ Javaraiah, filed a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-IV, Mysuru, in R.A.No.598/2011, which confirmed the judgment and decree dated 15.04.2011 passed by the I Additional First Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru, in O.S.No.1129/2006. The appellant was the plaintiff in the original suit, seeking a declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. The respondent No.1, Ramaiah, was the defendant, and respondent No.2 was the Tahsildar, Mysore Taluk. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove his title and possession over the suit property. The first appellate court concurred with the findings and dismissed the appeal. In the second appeal, the High Court framed a substantial question of law regarding whether the courts below were justified in dismissing the suit. The appellant argued that the courts below erred in appreciating the evidence and that the findings were perverse. The respondent supported the concurrent findings. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the concurrent findings of fact were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from any perversity. The court noted that the plaintiff failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove his title and possession, while the defendant had produced revenue records showing his possession. The High Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgments of the courts below.
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 re-appreciated unless shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. (Para 5) B) Property Law - Suit for Declaration and Injunction - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff must prove his title and possession over the suit property. In the absence of credible evidence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. (Paras 3-4) C) Evidence - Possession - Adverse Inference - When the plaintiff fails to prove possession and the defendant is found to be in possession, the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree for injunction. (Para 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 Regular Second Appeal, confirming the judgments of the trial court and first appellate court.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- concurrent findings of fact
- substantial question of law
- interference with findings of fact
- burden of proof
- title and possession
