Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Basavaraj Basavanneppa Pattan, filed six second appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Saundatti, sitting at Ramdurg, in R.A. No. 23/2001 and connected appeals, which dismissed the appeals and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 20.07.2001 passed in O.S. No. 133/1995 and other suits on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC, Ramdurg. The appellant had filed the original suits for declaration of title and injunction in respect of certain properties, claiming that he had purchased them from the previous owners through a sale deed. The respondents included the Government of Karnataka, the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the Liquidator of the Ramdurg Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., and several individuals. The trial court dismissed the suits, holding that the appellant failed to prove his title and possession over the suit properties. The first appellate court concurred with the findings. In the second appeals, the appellant contended that the lower courts had erred in appreciating the evidence and that substantial questions of law arose. The High Court, after hearing the counsel, found that the findings of fact were concurrent and based on proper appreciation of evidence. The appellant did not produce the original sale deed or prove its execution. The court held that no substantial question of law arose and dismissed all the appeals, confirming the judgments of the lower courts.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - The court held that no substantial question of law arose in the appeals as the findings of fact by the lower courts were concurrent and based on evidence. The appellant failed to prove title or possession over the suit properties. (Paras 1-10) B) Property Law - Title and Possession - Burden of Proof - The appellant claimed title based on a sale deed but did not produce the original or prove execution. The courts below rightly held that the appellant failed to establish title or possession. (Paras 5-8) C) Limitation - Adverse Possession - The appellant's claim of adverse possession was not proved as he did not demonstrate exclusive, continuous, and hostile possession for the statutory period. (Para 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeals involve any substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
All the second appeals are dismissed. The judgments and decrees of the lower courts are confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- concurrent findings of fact
- no substantial question of law
- limitation
- adverse possession
- title based on sale deed
- burden of proof
