LAXMIDEVAMMA & ORS. versus RANGANATH & ORS.

LAXMIDEVAMMA & ORS. versus RANGANATH & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below, which established plaintiffs' ownership over 'A' schedule property; since no substantial question of law arose, the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and has to be set aside.

Parties
Appellant: Laxmidevamma & Ors.; Respondent: Ranganath & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 January 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision on Second Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Declaration of Title, Encroachment, Second Appeal, Concurrent Findings of Fact
Civil Procedure Property Law Declaration of Title Encroachment Second Appeal Concurrent Findings of Fact

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Laxmidevamma & Ors.

Appellant

Ranganath & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision on Second Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiffs are entitled to declaration of title over 'A' schedule property
  2. 2 Whether defendants have encroached upon 'B' schedule property
  3. 3 Whether High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts under Section 100 CPC

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below, which established plaintiffs' ownership over 'A' schedule property; since no substantial question of law arose, the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and has to be set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned judgment in R.S.A. No. 297/2007 dated 27.9.2012 passed by the High Court of Karnataka is set aside
  • Judgment passed by the Addi. Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Chikmagalur as confirmed by the lower appellate court is restored