Case Note & Summary
The appellants (plaintiffs) filed a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2014 passed by the Fast Track Court II and Additional District Judge, Belgaum in R.A. No. 26/2014, which confirmed the judgment and decree dated 09.01.2014 of the trial court dismissing the suit for declaration and injunction. The suit property was allegedly owned and possessed by the plaintiffs, but the defendants contested the claim. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the lower appellate court affirmed the dismissal. In the second appeal, the High Court examined whether any substantial question of law arose. The court noted that the findings of fact by the courts below were concurrent and based on evidence. The plaintiffs failed to prove their title and possession. The High Court held that no interference was warranted under Section 100 CPC as there was no perversity or error of law. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - The High Court held that in a second appeal, interference with concurrent findings of fact is not warranted unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The court found no substantial question of law arising in the appeal. (Paras 1-10) B) Property Law - Suit for Declaration and Injunction - Burden of Proof - The plaintiffs failed to prove their title and possession over the suit property. The courts below concurrently dismissed the suit. The High Court upheld the dismissal, noting that the plaintiffs did not establish their case. (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 Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
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
