Case Note & Summary
The appellants, who were the plaintiffs in the original suit, filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of suit property before the II Munsiff & JMFC, Mysore (O.S. No.201/1995). The trial court dismissed the suit on 3.12.1997. The appellants preferred an appeal (R.A. No.30/1998) before the II Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Mysore, which was also dismissed on 27.2.2006, confirming the trial court's judgment. Aggrieved, the appellants filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found that the courts below had concurrently held that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title and possession over the suit property. The High Court observed that no substantial question of law arose for consideration as the findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - 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-opened unless perverse or based on no evidence. Held that the appellants failed to demonstrate any substantial question of law. (Paras 1-5)
B) Property Law - Suit for Declaration and Injunction - Burden of Proof - The plaintiffs must prove their title and possession over the suit property. In the absence of documentary evidence and reliable oral evidence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. Held that the courts below correctly dismissed the suit. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and decree of the courts below suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference under Section 100 CPC?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, confirming the judgments of the trial court and first appellate court.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- concurrent findings of fact
- substantial question of law
- burden of proof
- title and possession
Case Details
2014 LawText (KAR) (11) 9
G B Manjunatha (for appellants), P Nataraju (for R1-R2), R3 to R11 served and unrepresented
Smt. Puttasiddamma, Gangadharaswamy, Shankarananda Murthy
Siddaraju, S. Papanna, Lingaiah @ Galati (since dead by LRs) and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeal against concurrent findings in a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought to set aside the judgments of the trial court and first appellate court and decree the suit.
Filing Reason
Appellants were aggrieved by the dismissal of their suit for declaration and injunction by both lower courts.
Previous Decisions
Trial court (II Munsiff & JMFC, Mysore) dismissed O.S. No.201/1995 on 3.12.1997. First appellate court (II Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Mysore) dismissed R.A. No.30/1998 on 27.2.2006, confirming the trial court's judgment.
Issues
Whether the judgment and decree of the courts below suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference under Section 100 CPC?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the lower courts erred in dismissing the suit and that there were substantial questions of law involved.
Respondents supported the concurrent findings and argued that no interference was warranted.
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-opened unless perverse or based on no evidence.
Judgment Excerpts
The present appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. challenging the judgment passed in O.S. No.201/1995 which was pending on the file of the then court of II Munsiff & JMFC, Mysore, which is affirmed in Regular Appeal No.30/98 on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Mysore.
Procedural History
The appellants filed O.S. No.201/1995 for declaration and injunction before the II Munsiff & JMFC, Mysore, which was dismissed on 3.12.1997. They appealed to the II Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Mysore in R.A. No.30/1998, which was dismissed on 27.2.2006. Thereafter, they filed the present second appeal under Section 100 CPC before the High Court of Karnataka, which was dismissed on 28.11.2014.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
