Case Note & Summary
The appellants, who were defendants 3 and 4 in the original suit O.S.No.39/2003, filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 20.10.2009 passed in R.A.No.23/2006 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Bailhongal, which dismissed their appeal and confirmed the trial court's decree dated 29.05.2006. The trial court had decreed the suit filed by the respondents (plaintiffs) for declaration and injunction. The High Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, found that the lower appellate court had correctly appreciated the evidence and recorded concurrent findings of fact. The court held that in a second appeal, the High Court can only interfere if there is a substantial question of law, and mere appreciation of evidence does not give rise to such a question. The concurrent findings were not shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. Consequently, the second 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 in a second appeal can only interfere if there is a substantial question of law. Concurrent findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence cannot be re-appreciated unless perverse or based on no evidence. (Paras 1-3)
B) Civil Procedure - Declaration and Injunction - Concurrent Findings - The trial court and first appellate court concurrently decreed the suit for declaration and injunction. The High Court found no perversity or error of law in the concurrent findings and dismissed the second appeal. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court dismissing the appeal against the trial court's decree for declaration and injunction suffers from any substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The second appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- interference limited to perversity or error of law
- appreciation of evidence not a ground for second appeal
Case Details
2014 LawText (KAR) (03) 63
Regular Second Appeal No. 5314/2010 (DEC. & INJ.)
Sri. Ravi S. Balikai (for appellants), Sri. M. S. Wantamuri (for respondents)
Irappa S/o. Mallappa Uppin and Nagappa S/o. Basappa Uppin
Smt. Gouravva, Panchappa, and The Manager, State Bank of Mysore
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil second appeal against concurrent findings in a suit for declaration and injunction.
Remedy Sought
Appellants (defendants 3 and 4) sought to set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court which confirmed the trial court's decree granting declaration and injunction to the respondents (plaintiffs).
Filing Reason
Appellants were aggrieved by the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and first appellate court in a suit for declaration and injunction.
Previous Decisions
Trial court decreed the suit in O.S.No.39/2003 on 29.05.2006; first appellate court dismissed the appeal in R.A.No.23/2006 on 20.10.2009.
Issues
Whether the second appeal involves any substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC.
Whether the concurrent findings of fact are perverse or based on no evidence.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the lower appellate court failed to properly appreciate the evidence and that the findings were erroneous.
Respondents supported the concurrent findings and argued that no substantial question of law arises.
Ratio Decidendi
In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court can only interfere if there is a substantial question of law. Concurrent findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence cannot be re-appreciated unless they are perverse or based on no evidence.
Judgment Excerpts
Defendants 3 and 4 of an original suit bearing O.S.No.39/2003... are before this Court by filing an appeal under Section 100 of CPC.
The lower appellate Court has correctly appreciated the evidence and recorded concurrent findings of fact.
In a second appeal, the High Court can only interfere if there is a substantial question of law.
Procedural History
The suit O.S.No.39/2003 was decreed by the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Bailhongal on 29.05.2006. The defendants filed an appeal R.A.No.23/2006 before the Fast Track Court, Bailhongal, which was dismissed on 20.10.2009. Aggrieved, the defendants 3 and 4 filed the present second appeal under Section 100 CPC before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 100
