Case Note & Summary
The case is a Regular Second Appeal (RSA No.1858/2012) filed by the appellants (plaintiffs in the original suit) against the respondents (defendants) before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. The appellants had filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of certain immovable property. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed that dismissal. Aggrieved, the appellants filed this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court, after hearing the counsel for the appellants and perusing the records, found that the courts below had concurrently held that the appellants failed to prove their title and possession. The High Court noted that the findings were based on appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. It held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the second appeal. 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 court considered whether the second appeal involved any substantial question of law. Held that the concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and first appellate court cannot be interfered with in a second appeal unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, raises any substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, confirming the concurrent findings of the courts below, 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 jurisdictional error
Case Details
2014 LawText (KAR) (01) 11
R.S.A.No.1858/2012 (DEC/POS/INJ)
Sri Sanath Kumar Shetty.K for appellants; Sri D.L.Jagadeesh for R2-R6, Sri B.N.Shetty for R9, Sri G.Ravishankar Shatry for R7, R13, R15-R18
Sri. Narayana Kotian and Mrs. Gulabi
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Regular Second Appeal against concurrent dismissal of suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought to set aside the judgments of the trial court and first appellate court and decree the suit.
Filing Reason
Appellants were aggrieved by the concurrent findings of fact that they failed to prove title and possession.
Previous Decisions
Trial court dismissed the suit; first appellate court confirmed the dismissal.
Issues
Whether the second appeal involves any substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the courts below erred in appreciating evidence and that there were substantial questions of law.
Ratio Decidendi
In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. No substantial question of law arose in this case.
Judgment Excerpts
This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2012 passed in R.A.No.100/2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mangalore, D.K., dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2010 passed in O.S.No.100/2006 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Mangalore, D.K.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. Perused the records.
The courts below have concurrently held that the appellants have not made out a case for grant of decree of declaration and injunction.
The findings recorded by the courts below are based on appreciation of evidence on record. The same are not perverse.
In the circumstances, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Procedural History
The appellants filed O.S.No.100/2006 for declaration and injunction, which was dismissed by the trial court on 30.06.2010. They appealed in R.A.No.100/2010, which was dismissed by the Senior Civil Judge, Mangalore on 30.06.2012. The present second appeal (RSA No.1858/2012) was filed against that dismissal.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
