Case Note & Summary
The appellants (plaintiffs) filed a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, in R.A. No. 25/2022, which confirmed the dismissal of their suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in O.S. No. 131/2014. The suit property was agricultural land in Channahalli Village, Devanahalli Taluk. The plaintiffs claimed title and possession but the trial court dismissed the suit, holding that they failed to prove their case. The first appellate court concurred. In the second appeal, the High Court noted that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and were not perverse. The court observed that the plaintiffs did not establish their title or possession. The appeal was dismissed at the admission stage itself, confirming the concurrent decrees of the courts below. The court held that interference under Section 100 CPC is limited to cases where findings are perverse or based on no evidence, which was not the case here.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The High Court in a second appeal can interfere with concurrent findings of fact only if they are perverse or based on no evidence or suffer from a jurisdictional error. The court found no such error in the concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court dismissing the suit for declaration of title and injunction. (Paras 1-10)
B) Property Law - Declaration of Title - Burden of Proof - The plaintiffs failed to prove their title and possession over the suit property. The courts below concurrently held that the plaintiffs did not establish their case. The High Court upheld these findings as they were based on proper appreciation of evidence. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
Final Decision
The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. The judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, in R.A. No. 25/2022, confirming the dismissal of O.S. No. 131/2014, is upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second appeal
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- Section 100 CPC
- interference limited to perversity or jurisdictional error
Case Details
2026 LawText (KAR) (06) 51
Sri. C M Nagabushana (for appellants), Sri Ashok Haranalli, Senior Advocate for Sri Ashwi (for respondents)
Smt. Lakshmamma, Sri. C.J. Narendra, Sri. C.J. Thammegowda
Smt. K. S. Jayavani, Smt. K. Ramabai @ S. Lakshmi, Smt. K. Thulasi, Smt. Uma Devi @ Uma Rao.K., Smt. K. Savithri, Smt. K. Leelavathi, Smt. Kamala, Sri. K. Ravi, Sri. K. Prasad, Sri. C. Narayanswamy, Smt B. N. Rajamma, Sri. P. Raja Naidu, Smt. P. Jayamma, Sri. Babu Pathipati
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Regular Second Appeal against concurrent dismissal of suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought to set aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate court and restore their suit for declaration of title and injunction.
Filing Reason
Appellants were aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court dismissing their suit.
Previous Decisions
Trial court dismissed O.S. No. 131/2014; first appellate court dismissed R.A. No. 25/2022 confirming the trial court's decree.
Issues
Whether the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below are perverse or suffer from any jurisdictional error warranting interference under Section 100 CPC?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the lower appellate court erred in confirming the dismissal of the suit despite evidence on record.
Respondents supported the concurrent findings and argued that no substantial question of law arises.
Ratio Decidendi
In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact only if they are perverse, based on no evidence, or suffer from a jurisdictional error. The appellants failed to demonstrate any such error, and the concurrent findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence.
Judgment Excerpts
The present second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, in R.A. No. 25/2022, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in O.S. No. 131/2014.
The suit was one for declaration of title and permanent injunction.
The trial court dismissed the suit and the first appellate court confirmed the same.
In the second appeal, this court is required to see whether any substantial question of law arises for consideration.
The concurrent findings of fact are based on evidence and are not perverse.
Therefore, no substantial question of law arises for consideration.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Procedural History
The appellants filed O.S. No. 131/2014 for declaration of title and permanent injunction, which was dismissed by the trial court. They appealed to the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, in R.A. No. 25/2022, which was also dismissed. Aggrieved, they filed the present Regular Second Appeal No. 1577 of 2025 before the High Court of Karnataka.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
