Case Note & Summary
The dispute pertains to agricultural lands and a house situated at Village Dhokawade, Taluka Alibaug, District Raigad, originally owned by Narayan Hiru Mhatre. After his death intestate on 06 March 1986, his wife Narmadabai and daughter Neerabai (plaintiff-respondent) inherited the properties. Mutation Entry No. 2490 recorded Narmadabai's name in respect of all suit properties, while Neerabai's name was recorded only in respect of two properties. The appellant, Dattatray Gopal Mhatre, is the son of Gopal Mhatre, who was the son of Krishna Hiru Mhatre (brother of Narayan). The appellant claimed that after Narayan's death, he and his brothers (respondents 2 to 5) were in possession of the suit properties and that the plaintiff had no right, title, or interest. The plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 170 of 2005 seeking declaration of ownership and possession. The trial court decreed the suit on 23 April 2010, which was confirmed by the first appellate court on 07 December 2022. The appellant filed the second appeal challenging the concurrent findings. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the appellant failed to prove his claim of adverse possession against the plaintiff, who is a co-owner. The court held that the appellant did not establish ouster or denial of title to the knowledge of the plaintiff. The concurrent findings were not perverse, and no substantial question of law arose. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Adverse Possession - Co-owner - Burden of Proof - Claim of adverse possession by co-owner against another co-owner requires proof of ouster or denial of title to the knowledge of the other co-owner - The appellant, claiming as co-owner, failed to establish hostile possession or ouster of the plaintiff-respondent - Held that the courts below correctly decreed the suit for declaration of ownership and possession (Paras 1-34). B) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Concurrent Findings - Interference - The High Court in second appeal under Section 100 CPC cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence - The appellant failed to demonstrate any substantial question of law - Held that the appeal is devoid of merit and dismissed (Paras 1-34).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant-defendant proved his claim of adverse possession over the suit properties and whether the concurrent findings of the courts below warrant interference in second appeal.
Final Decision
Second Appeal dismissed. Judgment and Decree dated 07 December 2022 passed by District Judge-III, Raigad at Alibaug in Civil Appeal No. 64 of 2010 confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 23 April 2010 passed by 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Alibaug in Regular Civil Suit No. 170 of 2005 is upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Adverse possession against co-owner requires ouster or denial of title
- burden of proof on claimant
- concurrent findings not interfered with unless perverse
