Case Note & Summary
The case involves a property dispute among family members. The original plaintiff, Indumati Anantrao Naik (since deceased and represented by legal representatives), filed a suit for partition and possession of a property situated at Pune. The defendants, including Anil Anantrao Naik and others (appellants herein), contested the suit claiming adverse possession and challenging the validity of a Will dated 22.12.1986 executed by the original owner Anantrao Naik. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the Will was valid and that the defendants had not proved adverse possession. The first appellate court confirmed the decree. The appellants then filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arose. The court observed that the concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and were not perverse. The court also noted that the application for bringing legal representatives of the deceased respondent was allowed and no abatement occurred. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - The court reiterated that in a second appeal, interference with concurrent findings of fact is permissible only if the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The appellant failed to demonstrate any perversity or substantial question of law. (Paras 1-10) B) Property Law - Will - Validity - The courts below concurrently held that the Will dated 22.12.1986 executed by Anantrao Naik was validly proved. The High Court found no reason to disturb this finding. (Paras 5-8) C) Property Law - Adverse Possession - The appellant's claim of adverse possession was rejected by both courts below as not proved. The High Court upheld this finding, noting that the appellant failed to establish the requisite animus and possession. (Paras 6-9) D) Limitation - Suit for Partition - The suit was held to be within limitation as the cause of action arose after the death of the testator. The concurrent finding on limitation was not interfered with. (Paras 7-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeal involves any substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings of the courts below regarding the validity of the Will, adverse possession, and limitation.
Final Decision
Both second appeals are dismissed. Interim applications disposed of. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- interference limited to perversity
- Will validity
- adverse possession
- limitation
- Order 41 Rule 22 CPC
- Order 22 Rule 3 CPC
- abatement
- legal representatives
