Case Note & Summary
The appellant-defendant challenged the concurrent judgments and decrees of the trial court and the first appellate court in a suit for possession and mesne profits. The plaintiffs-respondents claimed title to the suit property (CTS No.188/A/LB, measuring 278 sq. yards at Line Bazaar, Dharwad) through a registered gift deed dated 07.02.1981 executed by Hanuman Prasad Shukla in favour of Ramachandra Pujar, father of plaintiff No.1. Subsequently, in a family partition, the suit property was allotted to plaintiff No.1. The plaintiffs also contended that the heirs of Parashuram Chidambar (Vasantibai and others) had surrendered their leasehold rights in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendant, who was in possession, failed to prove any independent title or right. The trial court decreed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed the decree. In the second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and were not perverse. The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court were confirmed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - The High Court dismissed the second appeal as no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The concurrent findings of fact regarding the plaintiffs' title and possession based on a registered gift deed and surrender of lease rights were not shown to be perverse or contrary to law. (Paras 1-6)
B) Property Law - Possession and Mesne Profits - Gift Deed - Lease Surrender - The plaintiffs established their title through a registered gift deed dated 07.02.1981 and subsequent partition. The defendant failed to prove any independent right or title. The courts below rightly decreed the suit for possession and mesne profits. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeal under Section 100 CPC raises any substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the first appellate court.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the first appellate court dated 29.04.2016 in R.A.No.187/2015 and the trial court decree dated 28.05.2012 in O.S.No.653/2008.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- concurrent findings of fact
- no substantial question of law
- interference limited to perversity or jurisdictional error
Case Details
2016 LawText (KAR) (11) 7
R.S.A.No.100698/2016 (VAC. POSSN. & MES. PRO.)
Sri. Murugendra Tubake and Sri Naveen R. Melinameni (for appellant), Sri. Gangadhar J.M. and Sri Praveen Tarikar (for respondents)
Shri. Aditya A/F Late Satyaprasad Mishra
Shri. Vasudev S/O Ramachandra Pujar and Shri. Mukesh S/O Harijivandas Patadia
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for possession and mesne profits
Remedy Sought
Plaintiffs sought possession of the suit property and mesne profits from the defendant
Filing Reason
Defendant was in possession of the suit property without any right or title, after the plaintiffs acquired title through gift deed and partition, and after surrender of lease rights by previous tenants
Previous Decisions
Trial court (III Addl. Civil Judge, Dharwad) decreed the suit on 28.05.2012 in O.S.No.653/2008; first appellate court (IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad) dismissed the appeal R.A.No.187/2015 on 29.04.2016, confirming the trial court decree
Issues
Whether the second appeal under Section 100 CPC raises any substantial question of law?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant-defendant argued that the lower courts erred in decreeing the suit and that there were substantial questions of law to be considered.
Respondents-plaintiffs supported the concurrent findings and argued that no interference was warranted.
Ratio Decidendi
In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence, or if a substantial question of law arises. Here, no such question was raised.
Judgment Excerpts
This appeal is filed by the defendant challenging the judgment and decree passed by the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad (lower appellate court) in R.A.No.187/2015 (Old No.55/2012) whereby the judgment and decree dated 28.05.2012 passed by the III Addl. Civil Judge, Dharwad (trial Court) in O.S.No.653/2008 has been confirmed.
In the light of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
Procedural History
Plaintiffs filed O.S.No.653/2008 for possession and mesne profits before the III Addl. Civil Judge, Dharwad, which was decreed on 28.05.2012. Defendant appealed to the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad in R.A.No.187/2015 (Old No.55/2012), which was dismissed on 29.04.2016. Defendant then filed the present second appeal under Section 100 CPC before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, which was dismissed on 24.11.2016.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Section 100, Order 42 Rule 1
