Case Note & Summary
The appellants, plaintiffs in the original suit, filed O.S.No. 88/1995 before the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Bidar, seeking a declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of suit land Sy.No. 62/B measuring 09 acres 25 guntas in Mungnal village. They claimed that their father Govind Rao was the exclusive owner in possession. The trial court partly decreed the suit for declaration but rejected the relief of perpetual injunction. The plaintiffs appealed in R.A.No. 22/2002 before the Fast Track Court-II, Bidar, which dismissed the appeal and confirmed the trial court's judgment. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed the present second appeal under Section 100 CPC. The High Court heard the appeal on 25.03.2019 and reserved judgment. The court noted that the parties were referred by their ranks before the trial court. The plaintiffs' case was that their father owned the land, but they failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove title or possession. The courts below concurrently found that the plaintiffs did not establish their claim. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, as the findings were based on evidence and not perverse. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The High Court held that in a second appeal, the court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The appellants failed to demonstrate any substantial question of law. (Paras 1-6) B) Property Law - Declaration of Title - Burden of Proof - The plaintiffs claimed title through their father, but failed to produce any documentary evidence of ownership or possession. The courts below rightly dismissed the suit as the plaintiffs did not discharge the burden of proof. (Paras 3-5)
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 second appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the first appellate court and trial court. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- concurrent findings of fact
- no substantial question of law
- interference limited to perversity or jurisdictional error
