Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2004 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Srirangapatna, in R.A.No.47/1994, which dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 25.01.1994 passed by the Munsiff, Srirangapatna, in O.S.No.326/1989. The original suit was filed by one B.Jayamma (since deceased, represented by her legal representatives) against Dhakshayini, Smitha, and others seeking partition of suit schedule property, claiming that she was the wife of late Bheemaiah and daughter of late Chikkabasavaiah. The trial court, after considering oral evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 and documentary evidence Exhibits P-1 to P-18 on behalf of the plaintiff, and oral evidence of DW-1 to DW-3 and documentary evidence Exhibits D-1 on behalf of the defendants, dismissed the suit. The first appellate court concurred with the findings. In the second appeal, the High Court noted that the appeal was filed under Section 100 CPC and that the courts below had concurrently found that the plaintiff was not the legally wedded wife of the deceased. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, as the findings were based on evidence and were not perverse. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - Concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in second appeal unless perverse or based on no evidence - The appellant failed to demonstrate any substantial question of law - Held that the appeal was devoid of merit and dismissed (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, raises any substantial question of law when the courts below have concurrently found that the plaintiff is not the legally wedded wife of the deceased and thus not entitled to partition.
Final Decision
Second appeal dismissed. The judgment and decree of the first appellate court confirming the trial court's dismissal of the suit are upheld.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- concurrent findings of fact
- no substantial question of law
- partition suit
- status as wife
- burden of proof
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (07) 59
Sri K N Nitish for Sri K V Narasimhan (for appellants), Sri M R Rajagopal (for respondents 1 & 2), R-3 & 4 served
Smt B Jayamma (since dead by LRs: Smt B Sujatha, Sri B Jagannath, Smt B Pushpalatha)
Smt Dhakshayini @ Latha, Smt Smitha, Sri Ningegowda, Sri Mahadevu
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeal against dismissal of partition suit
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought to set aside the concurrent judgments of the lower courts and obtain partition of suit schedule property
Filing Reason
Appellants claimed that the original plaintiff was the legally wedded wife of late Bheemaiah and entitled to partition
Previous Decisions
Trial court dismissed the suit; first appellate court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the trial court's judgment
Issues
Whether the second appeal raises any substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the courts below erred in holding that the plaintiff was not the legally wedded wife
Respondents supported the concurrent findings of fact
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 appellant failed to demonstrate any substantial question of law.
Judgment Excerpts
Appeal is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 16.04.2004 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Srirangapatna, wherein appeal was dismissed and Judgment and decree dated 25.01.1994 passed by the Munsiff, Srirangapatna, in O.S.No.326/89 came to be confirmed.
In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, the parties are referred in accordance with the rankings and status held by them before the trial court.
Originally suit in O.S.No.326/89 came to be filed by one B.Jayamma, w/o late Bheemaiah against Dhakshayini, Smitha and others seeking partition of suit schedule property claiming that she is the wife of late Bheemaiah and daughter of late Chikkabasavaiah.
Learned trial Judge was accommodated with oral evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 and documentary evidence Exhibits P-1 to P-18 on behalf of plaintiff and oral of evidence of DW-1 to DW-3 and documentary evidence Exhibits D-1 on behalf of defendants.
Procedural History
Original suit O.S.No.326/1989 filed by B.Jayamma for partition was dismissed by the Munsiff, Srirangapatna on 25.01.1994. Appeal R.A.No.47/1994 before the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Srirangapatna was dismissed on 16.04.2004. Second appeal R.S.A.No.630/2006 was filed before the High Court of Karnataka, which was dismissed on 01.07.2019.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
