Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Mr. Timotio Fernandes, filed a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court which confirmed the dismissal of his suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction. The appellant claimed to be the owner of a certain property in Merces, Goa, and sought to restrain the respondents from interfering with his possession. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the appellant failed to prove his title. The first appellate court affirmed this finding. In the second appeal, the High Court examined whether any substantial question of law arose. The court noted that the findings of fact recorded by the courts below were concurrent and based on evidence. The appellant argued that the lower courts misappreciated the evidence, but the High Court held that mere misappreciation of evidence does not constitute a substantial question of law. The court further observed that the appellant did not point out any perversity or illegality in the impugned judgments. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the concurrent findings. The civil application was also disposed of.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court reiterated that in a second appeal, interference with concurrent findings of fact is permissible only if the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The appellant failed to demonstrate any perversity or error of law in the judgments of the trial court and first appellate court. (Paras 1-28) B) Property Law - Title and Ownership - Burden of Proof - The appellant-plaintiff failed to prove his title over the suit property. The courts below concurrently held that the appellant did not produce sufficient evidence to establish ownership, and the second appeal did not raise any substantial question of law. (Paras 1-28)
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. The concurrent findings of the courts below are upheld. Civil Application No.22 of 2026 is disposed of.
Law Points
- Second appeal
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- interference limited to perversity
- Section 100 CPC
