Case Note & Summary
The appellants, who were the plaintiffs in the original suit, filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 15.02.2006 passed by the Presiding Officer, District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Bangalore Rural District, in R.A.No.39/2005, which dismissed their appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 31.01.1997 passed by the Munsiff and JMFC, Hoskote, in O.S.No.351/1995. The suit was filed by the appellants for declaration of title and possession in respect of certain immovable property. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title and possession. The first appellate court, on re-appreciation of evidence, concurred with the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. In the second appeal, the appellants contended that the lower courts had misappreciated the evidence and that there were substantial questions of law involved. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both courts below were based on evidence and were not perverse. The court observed that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the second appeal, as the findings were purely factual. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court were confirmed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Concurrent Findings of Fact - The High Court in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The court held that the appellants failed to raise any substantial question of law, and the findings of the courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court confirming the trial court's dismissal of the suit suffers from any substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 CPC.
Final Decision
The second appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 15.02.2006 passed in R.A.No.39/2005 by the Presiding Officer, District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Bangalore Rural District, confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.01.1997 in O.S.No.351/1995, are confirmed.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- concurrent findings of fact
- no substantial question of law
- interference limited to perversity or error of law
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (07) 33
Sri V.R.Datar for Sri Chandrakanth R Goulay (for appellants), Sri B.V.Gangireddy and Sri Y.Joyel Martin (for respondents)
Smt. Zickrunnisa, Smt. Noorunnisa, Sri Basha Sab, Sri Syed Nizar
Smt. Amina Bi, Sri Syed Hasam, Sri Syed Nasimuddin, Sri Syed Narasuddin, Sri Syed Naseeruddin, Ms. Isreth Sultana, Ms. Tajunnisa, Ms. Nasarath Sultana
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeal against dismissal of suit for declaration of title and possession.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought to set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court and restore the suit.
Filing Reason
Appellants were aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court dismissing their suit for declaration of title and possession.
Previous Decisions
Trial court dismissed O.S.No.351/1995 on 31.01.1997; first appellate court dismissed R.A.No.39/2005 on 15.02.2006, confirming the trial court's decree.
Issues
Whether the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below are perverse or suffer from any error of law.
Whether any substantial question of law arises for consideration in the second appeal.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the lower courts misappreciated the evidence and that there were substantial questions of law involved.
Respondents supported the concurrent findings and contended that no interference was warranted.
Ratio Decidendi
In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The appellants failed to raise any substantial question of law, and the findings of the courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence.
Judgment Excerpts
This appeal is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 15.02.2006 passed in R.A.39/2005 by the learned Presiding Officer, District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, wherein appeal came to be dismissed confirming the Judgment and decree dated 31.01.1997 passed in O.S.No.351/95 on the file of the Munsiff & JMFC., Hoskote.
Procedural History
The appellants filed O.S.No.351/1995 before the Munsiff and JMFC, Hoskote, seeking declaration of title and possession. The trial court dismissed the suit on 31.01.1997. The appellants appealed to the District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Bangalore Rural District, in R.A.No.39/2005, which was dismissed on 15.02.2006. Aggrieved, the appellants filed the present second appeal under Section 100 CPC before the High Court of Karnataka.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
