High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Second Appeal in Possession Suit — Concurrent Findings of Courts Below Upheld. Suit for Possession Based on Title and Prior Possession Dismissed as Plaintiffs Failed to Prove Title and Possession Within 12 Years.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU

Admin

2026-05-18 23:39:22

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The case involves a second appeal filed by the plaintiffs (appellants) against the concurrent judgment and decree of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissing their suit for possession. The plaintiffs claimed title and possession over the suit property, but the courts below found that they failed to prove their title and possession within 12 years prior to the suit. The High Court, while dismissing the appeal, held that no substantial question of law arises for consideration as the findings of the courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence and are not perverse. The court noted that the plaintiffs did not produce any documentary evidence to show their possession within the statutory period, and the defendants' possession was held to be adverse. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The High Court held that the second appeal does not involve any substantial question of law as the courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title and possession over the suit property within 12 years prior to the suit. The findings are based on proper appreciation of evidence and are not perverse. (Paras 1-10)

B) Limitation - Suit for Possession - Article 65 of Limitation Act, 1963 - The plaintiffs' suit for possession based on title was held to be barred by limitation as they failed to prove possession within 12 years prior to the suit. The defendants' possession was held to be adverse to the plaintiffs. (Paras 5-8)

C) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Title and Possession - The plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden of proving their title and possession over the suit property. The courts below correctly held that the plaintiffs did not produce any documentary evidence to show their possession within the statutory period. (Paras 5-8)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the judgment and decree of the courts below suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference under Section 100 of CPC?

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the second appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court and Trial Court. No order as to costs.

Law Points

burden of proof
limitation
adverse possession
title
possession
concurrent findings
substantial question of law
Section 100 CPC

Case Details

2024 LawText (KAR) (07) 22

R.S.A. No.283/2018 (POS)

2024-07-26

H.P. Sandesh

S. Prakash Shetty (for appellants), B.S. Prasad (for respondents 1-8)

Sri Dayananda Poojary, Sri Indra Pojarthy, Sri Gangadhara Poojary, Sri Ekanatha Poojary

Sri Surendra T. Mendon, Sri Sharath Mendon, Sri Sheetal Mandon, Sri Vikranth, Tara K. Kancha, Jayalaxmi S. Suvarna, Yashoda N. Salian, Shashikantha T. Mendon, Sri Venkatesh T. Mendon

Nature of Litigation

Second appeal against concurrent findings in a suit for possession.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought to set aside the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court and Trial Court dismissing their suit for possession.

Filing Reason

Appellants claimed title and possession over the suit property and sought possession from the respondents.

Previous Decisions

Trial Court dismissed the suit; First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal.

Issues

Whether the plaintiffs proved their title and possession over the suit property within 12 years prior to the suit? Whether the suit is barred by limitation? Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below are perverse or illegal?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the courts below erred in dismissing the suit and that they had proved their title and possession. Respondents supported the concurrent findings and argued that no substantial question of law arises.

Ratio Decidendi

In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The plaintiffs failed to prove their title and possession within 12 years, and the suit is barred by limitation.

Judgment Excerpts

This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court granting the relief of possession. The plaintiffs failed to prove their title and possession over the suit property within 12 years prior to the suit.

Procedural History

The plaintiffs filed O.S. No.54/2009 before the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Udupi, which was dismissed on 08.12.2016. They appealed in R.A. No.15/2017 before the Principal District Judge, Udupi, which was dismissed on 16.12.2017. The present second appeal was filed under Section 100 CPC before the High Court of Karnataka.