Case Note & Summary
The appellants, defendants in the original suit, filed a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 16.6.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Chikmagalur in R.A. No.90/2004. The First Appellate Court had allowed the appeal filed by the original plaintiff (since deceased, represented by legal heirs) and set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. The suit was originally filed as O.S. No.257/1992 before the Munsiff at Koppa, later renumbered as O.S. No.81/1995 and then O.S. No.26/2000 before the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), N.R. Pura. The plaintiff sought vacant possession and a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from encroaching upon a building site measuring 20 guntas in Sy. No.119 of Addagadde Village, Sringeri Taluk, along with a thatched hut. The Trial Court had dismissed the suit, but the First Appellate Court reversed that decision. In the second appeal, the High Court noted that the appeal was listed for orders and that the appellants' counsel was absent. The Court observed that the First Appellate Court had recorded findings of fact regarding possession and title, and that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - The High Court held that in a second appeal, interference with concurrent findings of fact is not warranted unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court reversing the Trial Court's decree calls for interference in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal with no order as to costs, finding no substantial question of law.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- interference limited to perversity or error of law
Case Details
2013 LawText (KAR) (09) 17
Regular Second Appeal No.2274/2007 (INJ)
Sri. Girish Kodgi (for appellants), Sri. B.S. Prasad (for respondent 1)
G.M. Nagesha Gowda, G.M. Chandrashekara, G.M. Laxmisha, G.M. Ramesha
Smt. Annapoornamma, R. Krishnamurthy, G. R. Kalaseshwara, G. R. Ganesha, G. R. Suresha
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for vacant possession and permanent injunction
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought to set aside the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court which allowed the plaintiff's appeal and decreed the suit for possession and injunction
Filing Reason
Appellants were defendants in a suit for possession and injunction; they were aggrieved by the First Appellate Court's reversal of the Trial Court's dismissal
Previous Decisions
Trial Court dismissed the suit; First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit
Issues
Whether the First Appellate Court's judgment and decree suffers from any substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 CPC?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants' counsel was absent; no arguments advanced on behalf of appellants
Ratio Decidendi
In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The First Appellate Court's findings on possession and title were findings of fact, and no substantial question of law arose.
Judgment Excerpts
Defendants in O.S. No.257/1992, re-numbered as O.S. No.81/1995 and yet again, as O.S. No.26/2000 before the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.,), N.R. Pura, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16.6.2007 in R.A. No.90/2004 by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Chikmagalur allowing the appeal to set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, have presented this second appeal.
Procedural History
Original suit O.S. No.257/1992 filed on 21.11.1992 before Munsiff at Koppa, renumbered as O.S. No.81/1995 and then O.S. No.26/2000 before Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), N.R. Pura. Trial Court dismissed suit. First Appellate Court (Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Chikmagalur) allowed appeal R.A. No.90/2004 on 16.6.2007, setting aside Trial Court decree. Present second appeal filed under Section 100 CPC.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
