Case Note & Summary
The appellant, G.K. Shekharappa, filed a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 16.06.2015 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channagiri, in R.A. No.05/2014, which dismissed his appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 05.09.2013 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Channagiri, in O.S. No.324/2009. The appellant was the plaintiff in the original suit, seeking a declaration of title and a direction to the defendant revenue authorities (respondents 2 to 4) to mutate his name in the revenue records in respect of land bearing No.20/p measuring 2 acres situated in Maravanji Village, Channagiri Taluk, Davanagere District. The appellant claimed that the suit property was granted to him by the State Government in 1978-79 and that he was in possession, but the revenue authorities had illegally entered the name of respondent No.5, Prakash @ Prakashappa, in the records. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the appellant failed to prove his title and possession, and that the suit was barred by limitation. The first appellate court confirmed this decision. In the second appeal, the High Court examined whether any substantial question of law arose. The court noted that the appellant's claim was based on an alleged grant order of 1978-79, but he did not produce the grant order or any other documentary evidence of title. The revenue entries relied upon by the appellant were not conclusive of title. The court also found that the suit was filed in 2009, whereas the cause of action arose in 1994 when the appellant allegedly came to know of the entries in favor of respondent No.5, making the suit barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The appellant also failed to prove his possession or adverse possession. The High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from any perversity or error of law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and no substantial question of law was framed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - The High Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and first appellate court, holding that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The appellant failed to prove title and possession over the suit property. (Paras 1-6) B) Limitation - Suit for Declaration of Title - Article 58 of Limitation Act, 1963 - The suit was held to be barred by limitation as the cause of action arose in 1994 when the appellant allegedly came to know of the revenue entries in favor of respondent No.5, but the suit was filed in 2009. (Para 4) C) Property Law - Revenue Entries - Not Conclusive of Title - The court reiterated that entries in revenue records do not confer title and are only for fiscal purposes. The appellant's claim based solely on revenue entries was insufficient to establish ownership. (Para 4) D) Evidence - Adverse Possession - Burden of Proof - The appellant failed to prove possession and adverse possession for the statutory period. The courts below correctly held that the appellant did not establish his possession over the suit property. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and decree of the courts below suffer from any substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. The judgment and decree of the courts below are confirmed.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- concurrent findings of fact
- limitation for declaration of title
- adverse possession
- revenue entries not conferring title
- burden of proof
