Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court in a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The appellants, who were the original plaintiffs, sought to challenge the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court which had dismissed their suit. The respondents, the legal representatives of the original defendant, opposed the appeal. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found that the findings of fact recorded by the courts below were based on evidence and were not perverse. The court noted that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the appeal. Additionally, a cross-objection filed by the respondents was found to be barred by limitation and was dismissed. Consequently, the Regular Second Appeal was dismissed, and the cross-objection was also dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Regular Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - The High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose. (Paras 1-10)
B) Civil Procedure - Cross-Objection - Limitation - Cross-objection filed beyond the period of limitation is not maintainable. The cross-objection was dismissed as barred by limitation. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and decree of the first appellate court suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference under Section 100 CPC; whether the cross-objection filed beyond limitation is maintainable.
Final Decision
Regular Second Appeal No.203/2010 is dismissed. RSA Cross Objection No.7/2013 is dismissed as barred by limitation. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Section 100 CPC
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- interference by High Court
- limitation for filing cross-objections
Case Details
2026 LawText (KAR) (07) 41
Regular Second Appeal No.203 of 2010 (SP) and RSA Cross Objection No.7 of 2013
M.R. Dilip for appellants; K.N. Nitish for K.V. Narasimhan for respondents
Avalappa (since deceased) by LRs Gangamma (since deceased) by LRs Rama Reddy, Ananda Reddy, Shanthamma, Radhamma
C. Narasimha Reddy (since deceased) by LRs Jayalakshmamma, Yeshodamma, Ananda Reddy S., Savithramma N., Sujatha N., Balakrishna Reddy K.N., Mahesha N.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought to set aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate court which dismissed their suit for declaration and injunction
Filing Reason
Appellants were aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court dismissing their suit
Previous Decisions
Trial court dismissed the suit; first appellate court confirmed the dismissal
Issues
Whether the judgment and decree of the first appellate court suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference under Section 100 CPC
Whether the cross-objection filed beyond limitation is maintainable
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the findings of the courts below are perverse and not based on evidence
Respondents supported the concurrent findings and contended that no substantial question of law arises
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. The cross-objection filed beyond the period of limitation is not maintainable.
Judgment Excerpts
The appeal is dismissed as no substantial question of law arises.
The cross-objection is dismissed as barred by limitation.
Procedural History
The suit was filed by the appellants (original plaintiffs) for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The trial court dismissed the suit. The first appellate court confirmed the dismissal. The appellants filed the present Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC. The respondents filed a cross-objection.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
