High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Second Appeal in Property Dispute — Upholds First Appellate Court's Declaration of Ownership Based on Adverse Possession and Valid Title. Concurrent findings of fact not interfered with under Section 100 CPC as no substantial question of law arose.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU

Admin

2026-05-18 20:48:35

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The case involves a Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the appellant (defendant in the original suit) against the judgment and decree dated 02.09.2020 passed by the I Additional District Judge at Kolar in R.A.No.131/2019. The First Appellate Court had partly allowed the appeal and modified the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur in O.S.No.38/2016. The original suit was filed by the respondents (plaintiffs) seeking a declaration of title and injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but the First Appellate Court reversed that decision, declaring the plaintiffs as absolute owners of the suit property. The appellant challenged this reversal in the second appeal. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found that the First Appellate Court had properly appreciated the evidence and that there was no perversity in its findings. The Court noted that the second appeal did not raise any substantial question of law as required under Section 100 CPC. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the First Appellate Court's decree. The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of interference in a second appeal and the finality of findings of fact by the First Appellate Court.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Substantial Question of Law - The High Court held that the second appeal does not involve any substantial question of law as the First Appellate Court's findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. The concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in a second appeal unless there is a clear error of law or perversity. (Paras 1-10)

B) Property Law - Declaration of Title - Adverse Possession - The First Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court's dismissal and declared the plaintiffs as absolute owners of the suit schedule property. The High Court upheld this finding, noting that the plaintiffs had established their title through adverse possession and valid documents. (Paras 2-8)

C) Civil Procedure - First Appeal - Reversal of Trial Court Decree - The First Appellate Court, being the final court of fact, had the jurisdiction to re-appreciate evidence and reverse the Trial Court's decree if the findings were erroneous. The High Court found no perversity in the First Appellate Court's judgment. (Paras 3-9)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court declaring the plaintiffs as absolute owners of the suit schedule property suffers from any perversity or raises a substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal, upholding the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court dated 02.09.2020 in R.A.No.131/2019.

Law Points

Adverse possession
Declaration of title
Section 100 CPC
Substantial question of law
Concurrent findings of fact

Case Details

2025 LawText (KAR) (11) 37

Regular Second Appeal No.459/2021 (DEC/INJ)

2025-11-14

H.P. Sandesh

B.C. Venkatesh for appellant, Srinivasa A.E. for respondents

Sri. H.R. Gopalappa

Sri. D. Venkatachalapathi and Sri. D. Muniraju

Nature of Litigation

Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court in a suit for declaration of title and injunction.

Remedy Sought

The appellant sought to set aside the First Appellate Court's judgment and decree which declared the respondents as absolute owners of the suit schedule property.

Filing Reason

The appellant was aggrieved by the reversal of the Trial Court's dismissal of the suit by the First Appellate Court.

Previous Decisions

The Trial Court in O.S.No.38/2016 dismissed the suit on 25.07.2019. The First Appellate Court in R.A.No.131/2019 reversed that decision on 02.09.2020, declaring the plaintiffs as absolute owners of the suit property.

Issues

Whether the First Appellate Court's judgment and decree suffer from any perversity or raise a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC?

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that the First Appellate Court erred in reversing the Trial Court's findings without proper justification. The respondents supported the First Appellate Court's judgment, contending that it was based on proper appreciation of evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court can only interfere if there is a substantial question of law. Findings of fact by the First Appellate Court, being the final court of fact, cannot be disturbed unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. In this case, no substantial question of law arose.

Judgment Excerpts

This second appeal is filed against the divergent finding wherein at first instance, the suit was dismissed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.38/2016 vide order dated 25.07.2019 and the said judgment and decree was reversed by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.131/2019 declaring that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property.

Procedural History

The suit O.S.No.38/2016 was filed before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur, which was dismissed on 25.07.2019. The plaintiffs appealed in R.A.No.131/2019 before the I Additional District Judge at Kolar, which partly allowed the appeal on 02.09.2020, declaring the plaintiffs as absolute owners. The defendant then filed the present Regular Second Appeal No.459/2021 before the High Court of Karnataka, which was dismissed on 14.11.2025.