Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to two Regular First Appeals (R.F.A.No.784/2013 and R.F.A.No.785/2013) filed under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2012 passed by the XLI Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S.No.7102/2009 and O.S.No.7174/2009 respectively. The appellants, Sri S. Harish and Sri K.S. Basavanagowda, had filed suits for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the respondents, Sri Prahlada Rao, Smt. Padmavathi Bai, and Sri Raghavendra. The trial court dismissed both suits, holding that the appellants failed to prove their title and possession over the suit properties. The appellants appealed, contending that the trial court's findings were erroneous and against the weight of evidence. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found that the trial court had properly appreciated the evidence and recorded concurrent findings of fact. The court noted that no substantial question of law arose for consideration and that the appeals were devoid of merit. Consequently, the High Court dismissed both appeals, affirming the trial court's judgment and decree. The court held that the appellants did not discharge the burden of proof required to establish their claim for declaration and injunction.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Appeal against dismissal of suit - Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 CPC - Concurrent findings of fact - The appellants challenged the trial court's dismissal of their suits for declaration and permanent injunction. The High Court held that the findings of fact recorded by the trial court were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from any perversity or illegality. No substantial question of law arose for consideration. (Paras 1-3) B) Property Law - Declaration of Title - Burden of Proof - The appellants failed to prove their title and possession over the suit property. The trial court correctly held that the appellants did not discharge the burden of proof. The High Court affirmed the dismissal. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and decree of the trial court dismissing the suits for declaration and permanent injunction suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 CPC.
Final Decision
Both appeals are dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 29.09.2012 passed in O.S.No.7102/2009 and O.S.No.7174/2009 by the XLI Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, are confirmed.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact
- no substantial question of law
- Section 100 CPC
- burden of proof
- declaration of title
- permanent injunction
