The scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is limited; the High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in a second appeal unless they are perverse or suffer from legal illegality.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - Scope of - Concurrent findings of fact by trial court and first appellate court - Appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 is narrow and limited - Interference is not warranted unless there is perversity or illegality in the findings of the courts below - Court should not impose a third opinion merely to interfere when lower courts have arrived at a just conclusion. (Paras 8 and 9)

(B) Adverse Possession - Pleadings - Where a defendant pleads adverse possession, it constitutes an admission of the plaintiff's title over the property in dispute - Such an admission reinforces the ownership claim of the plaintiff. (Paras 6 and 7)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of land (B-schedule property) alleging encroachment by the defendant. The defendant denied the claim but alternatively set up a plea of adverse possession. The trial court decreed the suit, which was confirmed by the first appellate court. The appellant (defendant) challenged the findings in the second appeal, alleging non-appreciation of evidence and failure to frame an issue on limitation.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that both the trial court and the first appellate court had correctly appreciated the documentary evidence and the survey reports. It held that the defendant's plea of adverse possession operated as an admission of the plaintiff's title. No perversity was found in the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

Issues: Whether any substantial question of law arose for the High Court to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding ownership and encroachment, specifically in light of the defendant's plea of adverse possession.

Ratio Decidendi: In a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court will not re-appreciate evidence unless the concurrent findings of the courts below are perverse or suffer from legal illegality. The admission of ownership implicit in a plea of adverse possession is a relevant factor for the court to consider.

Result: Appeal dismissed at the admission stage.

Table of Content
1. summary of trial facts, lower court findings, and appellate grounds. (Para 3 , 4)
2. legal effect of a defendant's plea of adverse possession as an admission of ownership. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. scope of section 100 cpc and prohibition against interfering with concurrent findings. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.07.2025 PASSED IN RA NO.94/2024 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAGIRI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.10.2024 PASSED IN OS NO.6/2020 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAGIRI. DECREEING THE SUIT.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant/defendant challenging the judgment and decree rendered by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Channagiri in R.A. No. 94/2024 dated 23.7.2025, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment of decree rendered by the II Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Channagiri in O.S No.6/2020 dated 30.10.2024,

2. Parties to the proceedings shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendant for the sake of brevity.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

3.1 The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for declaration of his title with respect to suit 'A' schedule property and consequential relief of possession of 'B' schedule property and mesne profits from the defendant.

3.2 It is the case of plaintiff that he is the lawful owner and in enjoyment of the property bearing Sy.No.40 of Nagenahalli village to an extent of 23 guntas which is assigned new Sy.No.40/3 of Nagenahalli village. He purchased the said property from one N. B. Jayappa through a registered sale deed dated 07.05.2002 and on the same day, the possession of the property was delivered to him. The khata and the revenue entry stand in the name of plaintiff.

3.3 It is further case of the plaintiff that before purchasing the 'A' schedule property, the plaintiff was owning the land in Sy.No.40 to the north of the said property assigned as Sy.No.40/1 and Sy.No.40/2. To the south of his property, land in Sy. No. 40 to an extent of 3 acres 10 guntas belongs to the defendant. The said Sy.No. 40 was subjected to hissa podi survey and thereafter the property of plaintiff was assigned with Sy. No.40/1, Sy.No.40/2 and Sy,No.40/3 and the property of defendant assigned with Sy.No.40/4. Plaintiff was cultivating his property on the basis of guttige from others. The defendant while cultivating his property through the tractor, the ridge which was there in the southern edge of suit "A' schedule property was pulled out and shifted to the northern side in the property of the plaintiff. Several requests were made by the plaintiff to the defendant not to encroach his property. But illegal attempts were continued by the defendant, thereby encroaching portion of the property of the plaintiff. A surveyor conducted hudbast /survey in 'A' suit schedule property on 07.08.2019 in presence of adjacent owners by issuing notice, whereby the plaintiff came to know that an extent of 19 guntas in the southern part of suit 'A' schedule property was encroached, which is shown as B schedule property. It is pursuant to this hudbast, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to vacate the encroached portion, which was not heeded to by the defendant and since 'B' schedule property is a wet land with irrigation facility of two crops, the plaintiff sought from the defendant's mesne profits. In view of the fact that the defendant did not get away from the encroachment or heed to the request made by the plaintiff, left with no other alternative, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and possession of 'A' and 'B' schedule properties respectively.

3.4 Upon summons being served, the defendant appeared and filed written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 19913

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAPradeep Singh Yerur, JManu G L – AppellantVersusK C Veerendra Patel – RespondentRSA No. 1648 of 2025

The scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is limited; the High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in a second appeal unless they are perverse or suffer from legal illegality.

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Pradeep Singh Yerur, J
Manu G L – Appellant
Versus
K C Veerendra Patel – Respondent
RSA No. 1648 of 2025