Case Note & Summary
The case involves a Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2010 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Mysore, in Regular Appeal No. 100/2008. The appellants, who were the plaintiffs in the original suit, sought a declaration of title and injunction in respect of suit property bearing No. 2374, Kantharaja Urs Road, K.G. Koppal, Mysore. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed the dismissal. The appellants then filed this second appeal. The High Court framed a substantial question of law regarding whether the lower appellate court's judgment calls for interference. The court noted that the findings of fact by both lower courts were concurrent and based on evidence. The appellants argued that the courts below erred in appreciating the evidence, but the High Court found no perversity. The court held that the second appeal does not involve any substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal, confirming the concurrent findings. The judgment was delivered by Justice Jyoti Mulimani on 6th November 2020.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - The High Court's jurisdiction in a second appeal is limited to substantial questions of law and does not extend to re-appreciating evidence unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and first appellate court on issues of title and possession were based on oral and documentary evidence and were not shown to be perverse. (Paras 1-10) B) Property Law - Title and Possession - Burden of Proof - In a suit for declaration and injunction, the plaintiff must prove his title and possession. The courts below, after appreciating the evidence, held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their title and possession over the suit property. The defendants' possession was established. (Paras 5-9) C) Evidence Act - Appreciation of Evidence - Oral and Documentary Evidence - The trial court and first appellate court considered the oral evidence of witnesses and documentary evidence including sale deeds and revenue records. Their findings were based on a proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. (Paras 5-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court calls for interference in this second appeal under Section 100 of CPC?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- interference by High Court limited to perversity
- appreciation of evidence by courts below
- burden of proof in civil suits
- title based on oral evidence and documents
