High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Second Appeal in Property Suit, Upholds Concurrent Findings of Courts Below. Suit for Declaration of Title and Injunction Dismissed as Plaintiff Failed to Prove Ownership and Possession Over Suit Property.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: KALABURAGI

Admin

2026-05-18 12:52:24

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The case involves two regular second appeals filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) against the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2009 in O.S.No.212/1997 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bidar, and the judgment and decree dated 05.08.2010 in R.A.No.100/2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, FTC-II, Bidar. The appellants, legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff Shiromani, filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction in respect of certain immovable property. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed the dismissal. The appellants then filed the present second appeals. The High Court framed substantial questions of law regarding the perversity of the findings and the burden of proof. The court noted that the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below were based on evidence and not perverse. The plaintiff failed to prove his title and possession over the suit property. The defendants were found to be in possession. The High Court held that no interference was warranted under Section 100 CPC and dismissed both appeals. The judgment emphasizes that the High Court in second appeal cannot re-appreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - The High Court in a second appeal can interfere only if there is a substantial question of law. Concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed unless perverse or based on no evidence. (Paras 1-10)

B) Property Law - Declaration of Title - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff must prove his title and possession over the suit property. Mere filing of suit does not shift the burden. The courts below correctly held that the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden. (Paras 11-20)

C) Property Law - Injunction - Possession - The plaintiff sought injunction based on alleged possession. The courts below found that the plaintiff was not in possession and the defendants were in possession. The High Court upheld the concurrent findings. (Paras 21-30)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the judgment and decree passed by the courts below in dismissing the suit for declaration of title and injunction are perverse and warrant interference under Section 100 of CPC.

Final Decision

Both second appeals are dismissed. The judgment and decree of the trial court and first appellate court are confirmed. No order as to costs.

Law Points

Section 100 CPC
Second appeal
Substantial question of law
Concurrent findings of fact
Interference by High Court
Burden of proof
Title
Possession
Injunction

Case Details

NC: 2024:KHC-K:7440

RSA No. 7386 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 7279 of 2011

2024-09-26

Anant Ramanath Hegde

NC: 2024:KHC-K:7440

Sri Shivanand Patil (for appellants), Sri Sanjeev Kumar C. Patil (for respondents)

Shiromani (deceased) by LRs: Smt. Rosamma, Anil Prakash, Amita, Aruna Kumari, Rajsekher, Anoop Theophilus, Anitha, Ashalatha, Dorcus

Godavari, Hannabai (deceased) by LRs: Sunil Kumar, Rahail, Mathew, Job, Sumadri, Chitra Kumari

Nature of Litigation

Civil suit for declaration of title and injunction

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought to set aside the judgments of the trial court and first appellate court and decree the suit for declaration of title and injunction.

Filing Reason

The appellants claimed title and possession over the suit property, which was denied by the respondents.

Previous Decisions

The trial court dismissed the suit on 16.08.2009 in O.S.No.212/1997. The first appellate court dismissed the appeal on 05.08.2010 in R.A.No.100/2009.

Issues

Whether the courts below erred in dismissing the suit for declaration of title and injunction? Whether the findings of the courts below are perverse and warrant interference under Section 100 CPC?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the courts below misappreciated the evidence and that the plaintiff had proved 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 can interfere only if there is a substantial question of law. Concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed unless perverse or based on no evidence. The plaintiff failed to prove title and possession, and the courts below correctly dismissed the suit.

Judgment Excerpts

The High Court in a second appeal can interfere only if there is a substantial question of law. Concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed unless perverse or based on no evidence.

Procedural History

The plaintiff filed O.S.No.212/1997 for declaration of title and injunction. The trial court dismissed the suit on 16.08.2009. The plaintiff appealed in R.A.No.100/2009, which was dismissed on 05.08.2010. The plaintiff's LRs filed RSA No. 7386/2010 and RSA No. 7279/2011, which were heard together and dismissed on 26.09.2024.