Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal filed by the defendants (appellants) against the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court decreeing the suit for declaration and injunction in favor of the plaintiffs (respondents). The suit property, comprising Survey No.116 and Block Nos.384/1 and 384/2 measuring 24 acres 7 guntas, was originally granted as Inam to the plaintiffs' father by the Assistant Commissioner, Bailhongal, on 30.04.1996. After the promulgation of the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, the property vested in the Government, but the plaintiffs continued in possession. The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.187/1985 seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction, claiming they were in possession and the defendants had no right. The Trial Court decreed the suit, and the First Appellate Court confirmed the decree in R.A.No.71/2000. The defendants then filed this second appeal under Section 100 CPC. The High Court, after hearing counsel, found that the concurrent findings of fact regarding possession and title were based on evidence and not perverse. No substantial question of law arose, and the appeal was dismissed. The court noted that the appeal was filed in 2005 and had been pending for 15 years, and the parties were enjoying the fruits of the decree. The judgment of the First Appellate Court was upheld.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - The High Court dismissed the second appeal as no substantial question of law arose for consideration, as both courts below concurrently found that the plaintiffs were in possession and had title to the suit property. Held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in a second appeal unless perverse. (Paras 1-5) B) Property Law - Inam Land - Title and Possession - The plaintiffs' father was granted Inam land by the Assistant Commissioner, and after vesting in the Government, the plaintiffs continued in possession. The courts below decreed the suit for declaration and injunction. Held that the grant and possession were proved. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of the First Appellate Court confirming the Trial Court's decree suffers from any perversity or raises a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC.
Final Decision
The second appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.71/2000 dated 30.07.2005 confirming the Trial Court's decree in O.S.No.187/1985 dated 30.08.2000 are upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- concurrent findings of fact
- substantial question of law
- Inam land
- possession
- title
- declaration
- injunction
