Case Note & Summary
The appellants, legal representatives of the original plaintiff Smt. Subbamma, filed a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 11.1.2011 in R.A. No. 110/2008 passed by the Fast Track Court, Devanahalli. The original suit, O.S. No. 402/1996, was filed by Subbamma seeking cancellation of a gift deed dated 12.3.1979 executed by Byamma (second wife of Venkatarayappa) in favor of the second defendant, and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession. Alternatively, she sought possession if the court found the defendants in possession. The plaintiff contended that the suit properties were ancestral properties of her father Venkatarayappa, who had two wives: Chikkamuniyamma and Byamma. The plaintiff was the only daughter of Chikkamuniyamma. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the lower appellate court confirmed that dismissal. In the second appeal, the High Court noted that the appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law: "Whether the courts below were justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff?" However, upon hearing the counsel for the appellants, the court found that the appellants were unable to demonstrate any substantial question of law. The High Court observed that the courts below had concurrently held that the plaintiff failed to prove her title and that the gift deed was valid. The High Court concluded that there was no perversity or illegality in the findings, and no substantial question of law arose for consideration. Consequently, 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, the court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless a substantial question of law is involved. The appellants failed to demonstrate any such question, and the appeal was dismissed. (Paras 1-5) B) Property Law - Gift Deed - Cancellation - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff claimed that the suit properties were ancestral and that the gift deed executed by Byamma was void. The courts below concurrently found that the plaintiff failed to prove her title and that the gift deed was valid. The High Court upheld these findings. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court suffer from any substantial question 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
- gift deed validity
- burden of proof
- ancestral property
