Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Smt. Subadhramma, was the defendant No.3 in O.S. No.226/2011 on the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge, Bellary. The suit was filed by the respondents (plaintiffs) for a declaration that they were joint owners of the suit schedule property and for a consequential relief of permanent injunction. The trial court decreed the suit in part, declaring the plaintiffs as joint owners of the suit property and holding them entitled to get compensation from defendant No.2. The appellant, being aggrieved, filed an appeal under Section 96 CPC before the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bellary, which was registered as R.A. No.79/2012. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant filed I.A. No.VII under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC to receive additional evidence. The first appellate court, by order dated 18.03.2013, rejected the application. Subsequently, the first appellate court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the trial court's judgment and decree. The appellant then filed the present regular second appeal under Section 100 CPC before the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from any perversity or illegality. The court further observed that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the appeal. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - The appellant challenged concurrent findings of fact in a suit for declaration and injunction. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises for consideration as the findings are based on appreciation of evidence and are not perverse. The appeal was dismissed. (Paras 1-4) B) Evidence Act - Additional Evidence - Order XLI Rule 27 CPC - The appellant sought to adduce additional evidence in the first appeal. The application was rejected. The High Court upheld the rejection, noting that the evidence sought to be produced was not shown to be relevant or necessary for the just decision of the case. (Para 2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and decree passed by the courts below suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arises and the concurrent findings of fact do not warrant interference.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- concurrent findings of fact
- no substantial question of law
- Order XLI Rule 27 CPC additional evidence
- declaration of joint ownership
- compensation entitlement
