Case Note & Summary
The appellants (plaintiffs) filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of certain immovable property. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title and possession. The first appellate court confirmed the dismissal. The appellants then filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court, after hearing the counsel, found that the lower courts had concurrently held that the plaintiffs did not establish their case. The court noted that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, as the findings were based on evidence and were not perverse. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the concurrent findings.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - The court considered whether concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and first appellate court can be interfered with in a second appeal. Held that the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. (Paras 1-5) B) Property Law - Suit for Declaration and Injunction - Burden of Proof - The plaintiffs sought declaration of title and injunction. Both courts found that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title and possession. Held that the burden lies on the plaintiff to establish title, and failure to do so results in dismissal of the suit. (Paras 2-4)
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 lower appellate court.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- concurrent findings of fact
- substantial question of law
- interference limited to perversity or error of law
