Karnataka HC Upholds Decree To Demolish Defendant’s Shed On 10-Foot Strip Found Encroached From Plaintiff’s Site

The plaintiff claimed ownership of the ‘A’ schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 25 February 2004 and alleged that the defendant had encroached upon part of it (‘B’ schedule) and constructed a shed there.

The defendant denied the encroachment and asserted ownership of the disputed site.

The Trial Court decreed the suit, granting declaration of title, possession of the ‘B’ schedule property after removal of the shed, and a permanent injunction.

The First Appellate Court dismissed the defendant’s appeal and confirmed the decree.

The defendant’s legal representatives pursued this second appeal under Section 100 CPC.

Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 confines a regular second appeal to cases involving a substantial question of law.

Concurrent findings of fact, when based on legal and acceptable evidence and not shown to be perverse or legally infirm, do not warrant interference in a second appeal.

No precedent was cited by the High Court.

The High Court found that both lower courts had properly assessed the evidence supporting the plaintiff’s title and the alleged encroachment, including the registered sale deed, other documents, and the Court Commissioner’s report and testimony.

It held that the resulting factual findings were neither perverse nor contrary to law and therefore disclosed no substantial question of law for consideration under Section 100 CPC.

The concurrent judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff remained undisturbed.