Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sri Nanjaiah, filed two Regular Second Appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 7.6.2008 passed by the Prl. District Judge, Tumkur, in R.A. Nos.144/2006 and 128/2006, which upheld the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & Member Addl. MACT, Kunigal, in O.S. No.22/2002. The suit was for partition and separate possession of suit properties. The appellant contended that the courts below erred in granting one-half share to the respondent in item No.2 of the suit properties and in refusing his claim for a share in the RCC building. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the appeals did not involve any substantial question of law as required under Section 100 CPC. The concurrent findings of fact by the courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence. The appellant failed to prove his exclusive ownership over the RCC building. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Regular Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - The High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a substantial question of law. The appellant failed to demonstrate any such question. (Paras 1-5)
B) Property Law - Partition - Burden of Proof - In a suit for partition, the plaintiff must prove his share. The courts below correctly held that the appellant failed to prove his exclusive ownership over the RCC building. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and decree of the courts below granting one-half share to the respondent in item No.2 of the suit properties and refusing the appellant's claim for share in the RCC building suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference under Section 100 CPC.
Final Decision
Both Regular Second Appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Section 100 CPC
- Substantial Question of Law
- Concurrent Findings of Fact
- Partition Suit
- Burden of Proof
Case Details
2013 LawText (KAR) (10) 13
Regular Second Appeal No.1987/2008 C/w. Regular Second Appeal No.1988/2008
K V Narasimhan (for appellant), P.D. Surana (for respondent)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for partition and separate possession of suit properties.
Remedy Sought
The appellant sought to challenge the judgment and decree of the courts below granting one-half share to the respondent in item No.2 of the suit properties and refusing his claim for share in the RCC building.
Filing Reason
The appellant was aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court granting one-half share to the respondent in item No.2 and denying his claim for share in the RCC building.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Civil Judge, Sr.Dn., Kunigal) decreed the suit on 19.12.2005 in O.S. No.22/2002, granting one-half share to the respondent in item No.2 and refusing the appellant's claim for share in the RCC building. The first appellate court (Prl. District Judge, Tumkur) dismissed the appeals (R.A. Nos.144/2006 and 128/2006) on 7.6.2008, upholding the trial court's judgment.
Issues
Whether the courts below erred in granting one-half share to the respondent in item No.2 of the suit properties?
Whether the courts below erred in refusing the appellant's claim for share in the RCC building?
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant argued that the courts below erred in granting one-half share to the respondent in item No.2 and in refusing his claim for share in the RCC building.
The respondent supported the concurrent findings of the courts below.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC unless there is a substantial question of law. The appellant failed to demonstrate any substantial question of law, and the findings of the courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence.
Judgment Excerpts
The appellant has challenged the judgment and decrees of the Courts below granting one half share to the respondent in item No.2 of the suit properties and refusing his request for the share in the RCC building.
These RSAs are filed u/s.100 of CPC against the judgment & decree dtd 7.6.08 passed in R.A.Nos.144/2006 & 128/2006 respectively on the file of the Prl. District Judge, Tumkur, upholding the judgment and decree dtd 19.12.05 passed in O.S. No.22/2002 on the file of the Civil Judge, (Sr.Dn.) & Member Addl. MACT, Kunigal.
Procedural History
The suit O.S. No.22/2002 was filed before the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & Member Addl. MACT, Kunigal, which was decreed on 19.12.2005. The appellant filed appeals R.A. Nos.144/2006 and 128/2006 before the Prl. District Judge, Tumkur, which were dismissed on 7.6.2008. The appellant then filed the present Regular Second Appeals under Section 100 CPC before the High Court of Karnataka.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
