Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Smt. Sumitra Bai, was the defendant in a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction filed by the respondent-plaintiff, P. Siddesh, in respect of a site bearing No.56/1-B in Agrahara Village, Banawara Hobli, Arsikere Taluk, Hassan District. The plaintiff claimed title based on a Hakkupatra (grant deed) dated 18.2.1991 issued by Manakaturu Mandal Panchayath. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, and the first appellate court confirmed that decree. The appellant-defendant filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the concurrent findings. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The court noted that the lower appellate court had properly appreciated the evidence, including the Hakkupatra and other documents, and had recorded concurrent findings of fact regarding the plaintiff's title and possession. The High Court found no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment and dismissed the second appeal, confirming the decree of the courts below.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - 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 by the trial court and first appellate court cannot be re-appreciated unless shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. (Paras 1-2) B) Property Law - Title - Grant by Panchayat - Hakkupatra - The plaintiff claimed title based on a Hakkupatra (grant deed) dated 18.2.1991 issued by Manakaturu Mandal Panchayath. The courts below concurrently held that the plaintiff proved his title and possession. The High Court found no perversity in the appreciation of evidence. (Paras 2-3) C) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Interference with Findings - The High Court held that the lower appellate court's judgment was based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. The appellant failed to demonstrate any substantial question of law or perversity. Hence, the second appeal was dismissed. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court suffer from any perversity or illegality 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 dated 1.7.2006 passed in R.A.No.58/2002.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- interference limited to perversity
- title based on grant
- Hakkupatra
- burden of proof
- adverse possession
