Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Rudrappa, filed a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 02.01.2012 in R.A. No.34/2007 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Holalkere, which confirmed the dismissal of his suit for permanent injunction. The suit, O.S. No.29/2006, was originally filed by the appellant as plaintiff before the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Holalkere, seeking a permanent injunction restraining the respondent, Prakash, from interfering with the appellant's possession of a property measuring 16 x 12 feet located on the southern side of the appellant's house, bearing katha No.19, situated at Gunjiganur village, Holalkere Taluk, Chitradurga District. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had not produced title documents or evidence of inheritance to establish his right over the property. The first appellate court, on similar grounds, dismissed the appeal. In the second appeal, the appellant's counsel argued that the suit was a simple suit for permanent injunction and that the courts below had unnecessarily delved into the question of title. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The court noted that the findings of fact by both lower courts were concurrent and based on the evidence on record. The plaintiff had failed to produce any documents to show his title or possession over the suit property. The court observed that in a suit for bare injunction, the plaintiff must at least establish possession and prima facie title. Since the appellant failed to do so, the appeal was dismissed. The court did not interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Regular Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - The appeal under Section 100 CPC is maintainable only if a substantial question of law arises. The court found no such question as the findings of fact by the lower courts were concurrent and based on evidence. (Paras 1-5) B) Property Law - Permanent Injunction - Possession and Title - In a suit for bare injunction, the plaintiff must establish possession and prima facie title. The plaintiff failed to produce any title documents or evidence of inheritance, leading to dismissal. (Paras 2-5) C) Evidence - Burden of Proof - The burden lies on the plaintiff to prove his case. The plaintiff did not discharge this burden, and the courts below correctly dismissed the suit. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff in a suit for bare injunction is required to prove title or only possession, and whether the courts below erred in dismissing the suit for lack of title documents.
Final Decision
The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Permanent injunction
- burden of proof
- possession
- title
- Section 100 CPC
