Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed by the plaintiffs (appellants) against the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Gokak, in R.A. No.26/1999, which allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 06.03.1999 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Raibag, in O.S. No.196/1990. The original suit was for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession over suit schedule properties measuring 1 acre 14 guntas in Sy.No.19/1A/1B/3 and 5 guntas in Sy.No.19/1A/1B/4 of Khanagal Village, Raibag Taluk. The plaintiffs claimed that Yellappa, father of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and husband of plaintiff No.3, had purchased the property from one Bhimappa Naik under a registered sale deed dated 22.05.1967, and after Yellappa's death, plaintiffs were in possession. The defendants contested the suit denying the sale deed and possession. The trial court decreed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed the decree, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove possession and title. The High Court, in the second appeal, found no substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal, affirming the first appellate court's findings.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - The High Court held that in a second appeal, the court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The appellants failed to demonstrate any substantial question of law. (Paras 1-10)
B) Property Law - Injunction - Possession - Burden of Proof - The plaintiffs sought permanent injunction claiming possession of suit property. The first appellate court reversed the trial court's decree, finding that plaintiffs failed to prove possession and title. The High Court upheld this finding as it was based on proper appreciation of evidence. (Paras 2-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and decree of the first appellate court reversing the trial court's decree of injunction suffers from any substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the first appellate court. No substantial question of law was found.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- concurrent findings of fact
- no substantial question of law
- interference with findings of fact not permissible
Case Details
2014 LawText (KAR) (07) 4
Sri T N Raghupathy for appellants, Sri M C Mastiholi for R1-R7, R12, Sri Ramakrishna for R8-11
Vasudev S/o Yallappa Naik, Master Krishna Rao S/o Yallappa Naik (minor rep. by guardian mother Mallavva), Mallavva W/o Yallappa Naik
Tukaram Bhimappa Naik, Ramakrishna Namadev Naik, Sahadev Bhimappa Naik, Hanumant Namdev Naik, Ningappa Namdev Naik, Chandrappa @ Chandru Ramadev Naik, Kallavva W/o Maruti Naik, Sidram Maruti Naik, Ramappa Maruti Naik, Kumari Doddavva (minor rep. by mother Kallavva), Revappa Bhimappa Naik, Shankar Ramappa Naik
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeal under Section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court in a suit for permanent injunction.
Remedy Sought
Appellants (plaintiffs) sought to set aside the first appellate court's judgment and restore the trial court's decree of permanent injunction.
Filing Reason
The first appellate court reversed the trial court's decree granting injunction, holding that plaintiffs failed to prove possession and title.
Previous Decisions
Trial court decreed the suit for injunction on 06.03.1999; first appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the decree on 27.07.2004.
Issues
Whether the first appellate court's reversal of the trial court's decree suffers from any substantial question of law.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the first appellate court erred in reversing the trial court's decree without proper appreciation of evidence.
Respondents supported the first appellate court's findings that plaintiffs failed to prove possession and title.
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. The appellants failed to demonstrate any substantial question of law.
Judgment Excerpts
Respondents herein were defendants in an original suit bearing O.S.196/1990...
Plaintiffs 1 and 2 were minors at the time of filing suit...
Suit schedule properties measuring 1.14 acres in Sy.No.19/1A/1B/3 and 5 guntas in Sy.No.19/1A/1B/4 of Khanagal Village...
Procedural History
The plaintiffs filed O.S. No.196/1990 for permanent injunction. The trial court decreed the suit on 06.03.1999. The defendants appealed in R.A. No.26/1999, which was allowed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Gokak, on 27.07.2004, setting aside the trial court's decree. The plaintiffs then filed the present second appeal under Section 100 CPC.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
