Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Thippeswamy and Smt. Nagamma, filed Regular Second Appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2008 passed by the Principal District Judge, Chitradurga, in RA Nos.16/2008 and 15/2008. The appeals arose from two suits: OS No.163/2002 filed by the respondent, Sri Rangappa, seeking a permanent injunction against the appellants, and OS No.8/2004 filed by the appellants seeking declaration of title and injunction. The trial court decreed the suit in OS No.163/2002 granting injunction in favor of the respondent and dismissed OS No.8/2004. The first appellate court confirmed these decisions. The appellants contended that the courts below erred in appreciating the evidence and that substantial questions of law arose. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found that the concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and did not suffer from any perversity. The court noted that the respondent had established his possession over the suit property, and the appellants failed to prove their title through the sale deed relied upon. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - The court held that concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and first appellate court cannot be interfered with in a second appeal unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The appellants failed to demonstrate any substantial question of law. (Paras 1-5) B) Property Law - Title and Possession - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff's suit for injunction was based on prior possession and title. The defendants, who claimed title through a sale deed, failed to prove their title as the vendor had no valid title. The courts below correctly decreed the suit. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below on the issues of title and possession give rise to any substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 CPC.
Final Decision
Both Regular Second Appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- concurrent findings of fact
- substantial question of law
- burden of proof
- title and possession
