Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sri G.K. Shekharappa, filed a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 16.06.2015 passed in R.A. No.05/2014 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channagiri, which dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 05.09.2013 in O.S. No.324/2009 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Channagiri. The appellant was the plaintiff in the original suit, seeking a declaration of title and directions to the defendant revenue authorities (Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Tahasildar) and a private defendant (Sri Prakash @ Prakashappa) to mutate his name in revenue records. The suit property was land bearing No.20/p measuring 2 acres situated in Maravanji Village, Channagiri Taluk, Davanagere District. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the appellant failed to prove his title and possession. The first appellate court concurred, finding no grounds to interfere. In the second appeal, the High Court noted that the appeal was filed under Section 100 CPC, which permits interference only on substantial questions of law. The court found that the findings of fact recorded by the courts below were concurrent and not perverse. The appellant's claim was based on mutation entries and revenue records, which do not confer title. The burden of proving title lay on the appellant, which he failed to discharge. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the concurrent findings and confirming the dismissal of the suit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Concurrent Findings of Fact - The High Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and first appellate court, as no substantial question of law arose. The appellant failed to prove title and possession over the suit property. (Paras 1-6) B) Property Law - Title and Possession - Burden of Proof - Mutation Entries - The appellant's claim based on mutation entries and revenue records was insufficient to establish title. The courts below correctly held that the appellant did not prove his title or possession, and the suit for declaration and injunction was rightly dismissed. (Paras 2-5)
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, holding that no substantial question of law arose and that the concurrent findings of fact did not warrant interference under Section 100 CPC.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- concurrent findings of fact
- no substantial question of law
- burden of proof of title
- mutation entries not conferring title
