Case Note & Summary
The present second appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction filed by the original plaintiff Basavaiah (since deceased, represented by his legal representatives) against the respondents. The suit property was described as agricultural land. The plaintiffs claimed that they were in possession and had title over the property. The defendants contested the suit, denying the plaintiffs' title and possession. The trial court, after considering the evidence, dismissed the suit. The first appellate court confirmed the dismissal. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court framed a substantial question of law regarding whether the concurrent findings of fact were perverse or suffered from any error of law. The court noted that the appellants failed to point out any perversity or error of law in the findings of the courts below. The court held that the concurrent findings of fact were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not warrant interference. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed. The court also observed that the appellants had not discharged the burden of proof to establish their title and possession. The judgment affirms the principle that in a second appeal, the High Court's jurisdiction is limited to substantial questions of law and cannot re-appreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse.
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. The court held that the appellants failed to demonstrate any perversity or error of law in the findings of the courts below. (Paras 1-10) B) Property Law - Suit for Declaration and Injunction - Burden of Proof - The plaintiffs must prove their title and possession over the suit property. The court held that the appellants failed to discharge the burden of proof, and the concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court dismissing the suit were justified. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below are perverse or suffer from any error of law warranting interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The second appeal is dismissed. The concurrent findings of the courts below are confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second appeal
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- interference limited to perversity
- burden of proof
- title and possession
- Section 100 CPC
