Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to two Regular Second Appeals (RSA No.7512/2010 and RSA No.7511/2010) filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), before the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench. The appeals were filed by the legal representatives of the deceased original appellant, Mahadevappa S/o Nagappa, against the respondents Uday Kumar and Mathew S/o David Doddamani. The appeals challenged the judgment and decree dated 01.10.2010 passed by the Senior Civil Judge at Yadgir in R.A.No.66/2009 and R.A.No.65/2009, respectively, which dismissed the appeals and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) at Yadgiri in O.S. No.53/2000 and O.S. No.49/2000. The original suits were filed by the appellants seeking possession of property. The trial court dismissed the suits, and the lower appellate court affirmed that decision. In the second appeals, the appellants contended that the findings of the courts below were erroneous and raised substantial questions of law. The High Court, after hearing the counsel for the appellants (Sri Ashok S. Kinagi) and the respondents (Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande), held that the appeals did not involve any substantial question of law. The court observed that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both courts below were based on evidence and were not perverse. Consequently, the court dismissed both appeals under Section 100 CPC, as no interference was warranted.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - The court considered whether the appeals under Section 100 CPC raised any substantial question of law. Held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. (Paras 1-3) B) Property Law - Suit for Possession - Concurrent Findings - The appellants challenged the dismissal of their suit for possession. The lower appellate court confirmed the trial court's decree. Held that no substantial question of law arises for consideration. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, raise any substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below.
Final Decision
Both Regular Second Appeals are dismissed. 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 jurisdictional error
