Case Note & Summary
The case involves a Regular Second Appeal filed by the defendants (appellants) against the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Hukkeri, which had dismissed their appeal and confirmed the trial court's decree in favor of the plaintiff (respondent No.1). The plaintiff, Krishnabai, had filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of a house property bearing CTS No.2732, contending that she had purchased the property from one Ramu Bhovi under a registered sale deed dated 15.06.1970. The defendants, who were the legal heirs of Ramu Bhovi, contested the suit claiming that the sale deed was forged and that the plaintiff was not the wife of Ramu Bhovi but an imposter. The trial court decreed the suit, holding that the plaintiff had proved her title and possession. The first appellate court confirmed this decree. 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. However, the High Court found that the plaintiff had failed to prove the execution of the sale deed as required under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as she did not examine the attesting witnesses or the scribe. The court also observed that the mutation entries in the revenue records were not sufficient to prove title. Consequently, the High Court held that the findings of the courts below were perverse and not based on legal evidence. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the lower courts, and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The court directed the parties to bear their own costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - The High Court in a second appeal cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The court held that the findings of the trial court and first appellate court were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not give rise to any substantial question of law. (Paras 1-10) B) Property Law - Suit for Declaration and Injunction - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff must prove title and possession. The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish her title over the suit property as the sale deed relied upon was not proved to be genuine and the mutation entries were not sufficient to prove ownership. (Paras 5-8) C) Evidence Act - Proof of Documents - Sale Deed - The mere registration of a sale deed does not prove its execution or validity. The court held that the plaintiff did not examine the attesting witnesses or the scribe to prove the sale deed, and thus the document was not proved in accordance with law. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgments and decrees of the trial court and first appellate court are set aside. The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.
Law Points
- Second appeal
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- interference limited to perversity
- Section 100 CPC
