Case Note & Summary
The appellants, who were the plaintiffs in the original suit, filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2015 passed in RA No.100/2013 by the Senior Civil Judge, Hosakote, which confirmed the dismissal of their suit for declaration and injunction. The suit property was agricultural land. The plaintiffs claimed title through a sale deed executed by one Kempamma, but the defendants disputed the validity of the sale and asserted their own rights. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title and possession. The first appellate court affirmed this finding. In the second appeal, the High Court noted that the findings of fact were concurrent and that the appellants had not raised any substantial question of law. The court observed that the lower appellate court had correctly appreciated the evidence and that there was no perversity in the findings. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that no interference was warranted under Section 100 CPC.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Concurrent Findings of Fact - The High Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and first appellate court, as no substantial question of law arose. The plaintiffs failed to prove their title and possession over the suit property. Held that the second appeal under Section 100 CPC is not maintainable on questions of fact alone (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court suffer from any perversity or error of law warranting interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the first appellate court and the trial court.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- concurrent findings of fact
- no substantial question of law
- interference limited to perversity or error of law
- burden of proof on plaintiff to establish title and possession.
Case Details
2018 LawText (KAR) (07) 1
RSA No.573/2016 (DEC/INJ)
Sri G Papi Reddy for appellants, Sri G V Shashikumar for caveator/respondent nos.1 & 2
Smt. M.S. Anuradha, Sri H.A. Vinay, Sri H.A. Vivek
Smt S V Ramanujamma, Smt H.M. Vinutha, Sri H.M. Ravindra, Smt Kempamma, Smt Vijayakumari, Sri Rajendra, Smt Sakamma, Sri H.K. Abhinandan @ H.K. Nanjunde Gowda, Sri H.K. Ramachandra Gowda, Smt H.K. Sarojamma, Smt Susheelamma, Sri Govinda Gowda, Smt Neelamma, Sri Prakasha
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeal against concurrent findings in a suit for declaration and injunction regarding agricultural land.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought to set aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate court and restore their suit for declaration of title and injunction.
Filing Reason
Appellants were aggrieved by the dismissal of their suit for declaration and injunction by the trial court and the confirmation thereof by the first appellate court.
Previous Decisions
Trial court dismissed the suit; first appellate court dismissed the appeal confirming the trial court's decree.
Issues
Whether the lower appellate court's judgment suffers from perversity or error of law?
Whether any substantial question of law arises for consideration in the second appeal?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the lower appellate court erred in appreciating the evidence and that the findings were perverse.
Respondents supported the concurrent findings and contended that no substantial question of law arose.
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 appellants failed to raise any substantial question of law.
Judgment Excerpts
The findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are concurrent and do not suffer from any perversity or error of law.
No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal.
Procedural History
The appellants filed a suit for declaration and injunction which was dismissed by the trial court. They appealed to the first appellate court (RA No.100/2013) which dismissed the appeal on 19.12.2015. Aggrieved, they filed the present second appeal under Section 100 CPC before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
