High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Regular Second Appeal in Property Suit — Concurrent Findings of Fact Not Interfered With Under Section 100 CPC. Court upholds trial and appellate court decrees dismissing suit for declaration and injunction, finding no substantial question of law.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: KALABURAGI

Admin

2026-05-18 15:52:55

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The present Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) arises from a suit for declaration and injunction filed by the appellants (plaintiffs) against the respondents (defendants) concerning immovable property. The trial court, by judgment and decree dated 29.07.2011 in O.S. No. 163/2005, dismissed the suit. The first appellate court, by judgment and decree dated 27.06.2015 in R.A. No. 34/2011, confirmed the dismissal. The appellants then filed this second appeal. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below were based on evidence and did not suffer from any perversity or illegality. The court noted that the appellants failed to raise any substantial question of law as required under Section 100 CPC. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the judgments and decrees of the lower courts were upheld. The court also observed that the appellants' counsel could not point out any error in the findings of fact. The decision reaffirms the principle that the High Court in a second appeal cannot re-appreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are shown to be perverse.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Regular Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Concurrent Findings of Fact - The High Court in a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The court held that the appellants failed to demonstrate any substantial question of law, and the findings of the trial court and first appellate court were based on proper appreciation of evidence. (Paras 1-10)

B) Property Law - Suit for Declaration and Injunction - Burden of Proof - The plaintiffs (appellants) failed to prove their title and possession over the suit property. The courts below concurrently held that the plaintiffs did not establish their case, and the defendants (respondents) were in possession. The High Court upheld these findings. (Paras 1-10)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the judgment and decree passed by the courts below suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Final Decision

The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 29.07.2011 passed in O.S. No. 163/2005 by the Prl. Civil Judge, Vijayapur and the judgment and decree dated 27.06.2015 passed in R.A. No. 34/2011 by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayapur are confirmed.

Law Points

Concurrent findings of fact
Section 100 CPC
Regular Second Appeal
Substantial question of law
Interference with findings of fact

Case Details

2025 LawText (KAR) (12) 2

RSA No. 200424 of 2015

2025-12-18

M.G.S. Kamal

K.N. Balraj, Sirajin Basha (for appellants); Sanjeevkumar C. Patil (for respondents 1-6)

Rajiyabi W/o Mohammed Ishaq Shiragur and others

Maktumbi W/o Maktum @ Janesab Shiragur and others

Nature of Litigation

Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC against concurrent judgments dismissing suit for declaration and injunction.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought to set aside the judgments and decrees of the trial court and first appellate court and allow the suit.

Filing Reason

Appellants were aggrieved by the dismissal of their suit for declaration and injunction by both lower courts.

Previous Decisions

Trial court dismissed O.S. No. 163/2005 on 29.07.2011; first appellate court dismissed R.A. No. 34/2011 on 27.06.2015.

Issues

Whether the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below are perverse or illegal? Whether any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this Regular Second Appeal?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the findings of the courts below are erroneous and not based on evidence. Respondents supported the concurrent findings and argued that no interference is warranted.

Ratio Decidendi

In a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. The appellants failed to raise any substantial question of law.

Judgment Excerpts

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.07.2011 PASSED IN O.S.NO.163/2005 BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE, VIJAYAPUR AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.06.2015 PASSED IN R.A.NO.34/2011 BY THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIJAYAPUR.

Procedural History

The appellants filed O.S. No. 163/2005 for declaration and injunction, which was dismissed by the Prl. Civil Judge, Vijayapur on 29.07.2011. The appellants appealed in R.A. No. 34/2011, which was dismissed by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayapur on 27.06.2015. The appellants then filed the present Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC before the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench.