The Supreme Court has set aside a Karnataka High Court ruling in a property dispute, holding that a second suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable and was barred by established legal principles. The Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih held that:
“the High Court proceeded to reassess the entire factual matrix and arrived at conclusions contrary to the findings concurrently recorded by the courts below. Such an exercise, in the absence of a clear demonstration that the findings of the courts below were perverse or contrary to law, was beyond the permissible limits of jurisdiction under Section 100, CPC.”
The case arose from a dispute over ownership and possession of property following an alleged adoption in 1961, where the plaintiff initially challenged the adoption deed but later filed a second suit seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession, leading to questions on whether such subsequent claims were legally maintainable.
Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had independently examined the pleadings, evidence, and prior proceedings, and had concurrently held that the second suit was barred by res judicata, constructive res judicata, and Order II Rule 2 of the CPC. However, the High Court, in second appeal, interfered with these concurrent findings and decreed the suit, which the Supreme Court held was beyond its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC.
The Court observed that “the plaintiff must claim all reliefs arising from a single cause of action in one and the same proceeding.” The Court referred to P. Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K. Patkar, (2024) 13 SCC 553, which held that a second appellate court is not expected to conduct a “third trial on facts” and can interfere only when a substantial question of law arises.
Finding no such legal error, the Court restored the concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court, and dismissed the plaintiff’s suit, while recording:
“The High Court committed a manifest error of law in interfering with the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below.”
Appearances
Petitioner- Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. C.M. Angadi, Adv. Mr. Rangon Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Adv.
Respondent- Mr. Anirudh Sanganeria, AOR Mr. Prakash Jadhav, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Dilip Nayak, Adv. Mr. Ravichandra Jadhav, Adv. Mr. Sewa Singh, Adv. Mr. Venkata Raghu Mannepalli, Adv.
