Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Ningappa, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents in O.S. No. 319/2001 before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and J.M.F.C., Dharwad, claiming possession over the suit property. The trial court dismissed the suit on 07.06.2002, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove his possession. The appellant appealed to the II Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Dharwad, in R.A. No. 126/2002, which was dismissed on 29.09.2007, confirming the trial court's judgment. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present regular second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, before the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found that the courts below had concurrently held that the appellant did not establish possession. The High Court noted that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, as the findings were based on evidence and were not perverse. The appeal was dismissed, and the concurrent findings were upheld.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - The High Court in a second appeal cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The appellant failed to demonstrate any substantial question of law. (Para 1-3) B) Property Law - Permanent Injunction - Possession - The plaintiff sought injunction based on possession. Both courts below concurrently found that the plaintiff failed to prove possession over the suit property. The High Court upheld the dismissal. (Para 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court confirming the dismissal of the suit for permanent 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 lower appellate court.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- concurrent findings of fact
- no substantial question of law
- interference limited to perversity or error of law
