High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Regular Second Appeal in Property Suit — Upholds First Appellate Court's Reversal of Trial Court Decree. The court held that the appellant-defendant No.6 failed to raise any substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC, and the concurrent findings of fact by the lower appellate court did not warrant interference.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: KALABURAGI

Admin

2026-05-18 12:52:14

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The present Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) was filed by the appellant, who was defendant No.6 in the original suit, against the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2010 passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Gulbarga in R.A. No.137/2009. The First Appellate Court had allowed the appeal filed by the respondents (plaintiffs) and set aside the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) at Sedam in O.S. No.90/2005, thereby dismissing the suit with costs throughout. The appellant-defendant No.6, Sharnamma, claimed to be the wife of Annayya and was aggrieved by the reversal of the trial court's decree which had originally decreed the suit in her favor. The respondents, including Renuka alias Kavita (daughter of Annayya) and others, were the plaintiffs in the suit seeking declaration of title and possession over the suit property. The trial court had decreed the suit, but the First Appellate Court reversed it, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title and possession. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found that no substantial question of law arose for consideration as the findings of the First Appellate Court were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. The court noted that the appellant could not demonstrate any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the First Appellate Court was upheld.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Regular Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - The appellant-defendant No.6 challenged the First Appellate Court's judgment which reversed the trial court's decree and dismissed the suit. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose as the findings of fact were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. The appeal was dismissed. (Paras 1-5)

B) Property Law - Suit for Declaration and Possession - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff failed to prove title and possession over the suit property. The First Appellate Court correctly reversed the trial court's decree as the evidence did not establish the plaintiff's claim. The High Court affirmed that the findings of fact were not liable to be interfered with in a second appeal. (Paras 2-4)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court suffered 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 21.10.2010 passed in R.A. No.137/2009 by the IV Additional District Judge, Gulbarga is confirmed.

Law Points

Section 100 CPC
Substantial question of law
Concurrent findings of fact
Interference in second appeal

Case Details

2024 LawText (KAR) (01) 58

R.S.A.No.7034 of 2011

2024-01-25

M.G.S.Kamal

Sri. Chaitanya Kumar C.M. (for appellant), Smt. Hema L.K. (for respondent No.1)

Sharnamma

Renuka alias Kavita and Others

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 and possession.

Remedy Sought

The appellant-defendant No.6 sought to set aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court which had reversed the trial court's decree and dismissed the suit.

Filing Reason

The appellant was aggrieved by the First Appellate Court's judgment allowing the appeal and dismissing the suit with costs.

Previous Decisions

The trial court (Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) at Sedam) decreed the suit in O.S. No.90/2005 on 23.07.2009. The First Appellate Court (IV Additional District Judge, Gulbarga) allowed R.A. No.137/2009 on 21.10.2010, setting aside the trial court's decree and dismissing the suit.

Issues

Whether the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court suffered from any perversity or illegality warranting interference under Section 100 CPC.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that the First Appellate Court erred in reversing the trial court's decree. The respondents supported the First Appellate Court's judgment.

Ratio Decidendi

In a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court can interfere only if there is a substantial question of law. Findings of fact based on proper appreciation of evidence, not shown to be perverse, do not give rise to a substantial question of law.

Judgment Excerpts

This appeal is by the defendant No.6 being aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 21.10.2010 passed in R.A.No.137/2009 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Gulbarga (First Appellate Court) by which while allowing the said appeal the First Appellate Court set aside the Judgment and decree dated 23.07.2009 passed in O.S. No.90/2005 by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) at Sedam and dismissed the suit with costs throughout.

Procedural History

The suit O.S. No.90/2005 was filed before the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) at Sedam, which was decreed on 23.07.2009. The respondents (plaintiffs) appealed to the IV Additional District Judge, Gulbarga in R.A. No.137/2009, which was allowed on 21.10.2010, setting aside the trial court's decree and dismissing the suit. The appellant-defendant No.6 then filed the present Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC before the High Court of Karnataka at Kalaburagi Bench.