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 courts below had concurrently held that the plaintiffs did not establish their case. The High Court noted that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, as the findings were based on appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - 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 second appeal is confined to substantial questions of law and concurrent findings of fact cannot be re-appreciated unless perverse or based on no evidence. (Paras 1-3) B) Property Law - Suit for Declaration and Injunction - Burden of Proof - The plaintiffs sought declaration of title and injunction. The courts below found that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title and possession. Held that the burden lies on the plaintiff to establish title and possession, and failure to discharge that burden results in dismissal of the suit. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court confirming the trial court's dismissal of the suit gives rise to any substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC.
Final Decision
The second appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court dated 19.12.2015 in R.A. No.14/1999 confirming the trial court's decree dated 5.2.1999 in O.S. No.92/1997 are upheld.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- interference limited to perversity or error of law
