Case Note & Summary
The respondent/plaintiff Basappa filed a suit for possession in O.S. No.215/2006 before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Mudhol, claiming ownership of land bearing RS No.98/1 measuring 9 acres 37 guntas situated at Budni BK Village. The appellant/defendant Krishnagouda claimed ownership of adjoining land bearing RS No.97/2 measuring 9 acres 6 guntas. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had encroached upon 3 guntas of his land, as shown in the plaint hand-sketch map by red ink. The trial court decreed the suit on 15.03.2007, directing the defendant to hand over possession of the 3 guntas to the plaintiff within three months, and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction. The defendant appealed to the Senior Civil Judge, Mudhol, in R.A. No.25/2007, which was dismissed on 28.11.2011, confirming the trial court's decree. The defendant then filed the present Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, heard the appeal. The appellant argued that the courts below erred in decreeing the suit without proper identification of the suit property and that the hand-sketch map was not admissible. The respondent supported the concurrent findings. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found that the courts below had concurrently held that the plaintiff proved his title and the defendant's encroachment. The court noted that the appellant failed to raise any substantial question of law as required under Section 100 CPC. The High Court held that there was no perversity or illegality in the findings of fact, and the second appeal was liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, 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 they are perverse or based on no evidence. The appellant failed to raise any substantial question of law. (Paras 1-4) B) Property Law - Possession - Title and Encroachment - Suit for Possession - The plaintiff proved his title to the suit land and that the defendant had encroached upon 3 guntas. The courts below concurrently found in favor of the plaintiff. (Paras 2-3) C) Evidence - Hand-Sketch Map - Admissibility - The plaintiff's hand-sketch map was relied upon to identify the encroached area. The defendant did not produce any contra evidence. (Para 2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and decree of the courts below suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the first appellate court and the trial court, with 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
- possession suit based on title
- encroachment
- hand-sketch map
