Case Note & Summary
The appellants, along with one Ramappa, filed a suit for declaration, partition, and separate possession of suit schedule properties, alleging the existence of a joint Hindu Undivided Family with ancestral properties. The appellants claimed to be female heirs of the propositus Nanjappa. The suit was resisted by the defendants. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed the dismissal. The appellants then filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court, after hearing the counsel, found that the findings of fact recorded by the courts below were concurrent and based on proper appreciation of evidence. The court noted that no substantial question of law arose for consideration and dismissed the appeal at the stage of admission. The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of interference in second appeals under Section 100 CPC, which is confined to substantial questions of law and does not permit re-appreciation of evidence on concurrent findings of fact.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration as the findings of fact recorded by the courts below were concurrent and based on appreciation of evidence. The appeal was dismissed at the stage of admission. (Para 3) B) Hindu Law - Joint Family Property - Partition - Limitation - The suit for partition was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the suit properties were joint family properties and that the suit was barred by limitation. The High Court upheld the concurrent findings. (Paras 1-3)
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 the courts below.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The concurrent findings of fact were upheld.
Law Points
- Second appeal
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- limitation
- joint family property
- partition
- Section 100 CPC
