Case Note & Summary
The present regular second appeal was filed by the plaintiffs, Parvathamma and Lokesh H., challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2004 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chickmagalur, in R.A. No.38/2002. The first appellate court had reversed the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2002 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kadur, in O.S. No.125/2001, thereby dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had originally filed the suit seeking certain reliefs in respect of the property in question. The trial court, after considering the evidence, decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs. However, the first appellate court, without properly reappreciating the evidence, reversed the trial court's decision. The High Court, in the second appeal, examined the findings of the first appellate court and found that the appellate court had failed to properly reappreciate the evidence and had reversed the trial court's decree without adequate reasoning. The High Court held that the judgment of the first appellate court was perverse and not sustainable in law. Consequently, the High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate court, and restored the judgment and decree of the trial court. The court directed the parties to bear their own costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Reappreciation of Evidence - The first appellate court failed to properly reappreciate the evidence and reversed the well-reasoned judgment of the trial court without adequate reasoning - Held that the first appellate court's judgment was perverse and liable to be set aside (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the first appellate court was justified in reversing the trial court's judgment and decree without properly reappreciating the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate court, and restored the judgment and decree of the trial court. Parties to bear their own costs.
Law Points
- Reappreciation of evidence by first appellate court
- Scope of second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- Reversal of trial court decree without proper reasoning
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (04) 21
Shri. G.S. Balagangadhar for appellants, Sri. K Shrihari for respondents
Parvathamma (since dead by L.R. Lokesh H.) and Lokesh H.
Govindappa (since dead by L.Rs. Kariyamma, Chandramma, Laxmamma), Kariyappa, and M.B.Kalleshappa
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Regular second appeal against judgment and decree of first appellate court reversing trial court's decree in a civil suit.
Remedy Sought
Appellants (plaintiffs) sought restoration of trial court's decree in their favor.
Filing Reason
First appellate court reversed the trial court's decree without proper reappreciation of evidence.
Previous Decisions
Trial court decreed the suit in favor of plaintiffs on 28.10.2002; first appellate court reversed it on 10.11.2004.
Issues
Whether the first appellate court properly reappreciated the evidence before reversing the trial court's decree.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the first appellate court failed to properly reappreciate the evidence and its judgment was perverse.
Respondents supported the first appellate court's judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
The first appellate court must properly reappreciate the evidence before reversing a trial court's decree; failure to do so renders the judgment perverse and liable to be set aside in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC.
Judgment Excerpts
This regular second appeal is filed by the Plaintiffs challenging the Judgment and decree dated 10.11.2004 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chickmagalur, in RA No.38/2002, reversing the Judgment and decree dated 28.10.2002 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Kadur, in O.S. No.125/2001 and consequently dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs.
Procedural History
The plaintiffs filed O.S. No.125/2001 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kadur, which was decreed on 28.10.2002. The defendants appealed in R.A. No.38/2002 before the Additional District Judge, Chikmagaluru, which allowed the appeal on 10.11.2004, reversing the trial court's decree. The plaintiffs then filed the present second appeal under Section 100 CPC before the High Court of Karnataka.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 100
