Case Note & Summary
The appellants, who were the plaintiffs in the original suit, filed a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 30-03-2009 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) & JMFC, Hospet in R.A.No.86/2008, which confirmed the judgment and decree dated 14-10-2008 of the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC, Hospet in O.S.No.140/2006. The suit was filed for a declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners of the plaint 'B' schedule properties and that the registered will dated 03-10-1981 executed by one Veeragara Obamma bequeathing the plaint 'B' schedule properties in favour of the defendant is null and void, and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed that dismissal, resulting in concurrent findings of fact against the plaintiffs. In the second appeal, the High Court heard the counsel for the appellants and the amicus curiae appointed for the respondent. The court noted that the appeal was filed under Section 100 CPC and that both lower courts had concurrently found against the plaintiffs on facts. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the appeal, as the concurrent findings of fact were not shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed at the admission stage itself.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The High Court dismissed the second appeal as no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The plaintiffs' suit for declaration of ownership and challenge to a will was concurrently dismissed by the trial court and first appellate court on facts. Held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in a second appeal unless perverse or based on no evidence (Para 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 fact recorded by the courts below.
Final Decision
The second appeal is dismissed. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below are confirmed.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- concurrent findings of fact
- no substantial question of law
- scope of interference in second appeal
