Case Note & Summary
The case involves a Regular First Appeal filed by the defendants (appellants) against the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2010 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Basavana Bagewadi, in R.A. No. 14/2009, which confirmed the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Basavana Bagewadi, in O.S. No. 54/2006. The plaintiffs (respondents) had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession over the suit schedule property. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs, holding that they were in possession and enjoyment of the property. The defendants appealed, but the lower appellate court confirmed the decree. Aggrieved, the defendants filed the present appeal. The High Court, after hearing the parties and perusing the records, found that the courts below had recorded concurrent findings of fact based on evidence, including oral testimony and documents. The appellants argued that the findings were perverse, but the court noted that the appellants had not placed any material to show that the findings were contrary to the record. The court held that in a regular first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellate court can reappreciate evidence, but it will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse. Since the appellants failed to demonstrate any perversity, the appeal was dismissed. The court also observed that the suit was for permanent injunction and the plaintiffs had established their possession. The judgment and decree of the courts below were upheld.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Regular First Appeal - Concurrent Findings of Fact - Section 96 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The appellate court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are shown to be perverse or contrary to the material on record. The appellants failed to demonstrate any perversity in the findings of the trial court and the lower appellate court regarding possession and enjoyment of the suit property. (Paras 1-10) B) Property Law - Permanent Injunction - Possession - The plaintiffs sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession over the suit schedule property. The courts below, based on oral and documentary evidence, held that the plaintiffs were in possession and enjoyment of the property and granted the injunction. The High Court upheld these findings. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and decree of the courts below granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents suffers from perversity warranting interference in the regular first appeal.
Final Decision
The Regular First Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 30.09.2010 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Basavana Bagewadi, in R.A. No. 14/2009, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Basavana Bagewadi, in O.S. No. 54/2006, are upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Interference by appellate court
- Perversity
- Section 96 Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908
