Case Note & Summary
The present second appeal arises from a suit for permanent injunction and possession filed by the original plaintiffs (now respondents) against the defendants (now appellants) in respect of agricultural land Survey No. 21, area 4.12 acres, situated at Antora (Juna), Tahsil Ashti, District Wardha. The plaintiffs claimed that they were the owners of the suit property and that the defendants were tenants at will, having been allowed to cultivate the land by the plaintiffs' predecessor-in-title. The defendants, however, contended that they had become owners by adverse possession, having cultivated the land since 1950-51. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to prove title and that the defendants had perfected title by adverse possession. On appeal, the lower appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, decreeing the suit for possession and injunction. The defendants then filed the present second appeal. The High Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal, holding that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower appellate court were based on evidence and that no substantial question of law arose. The court noted that the defendants were tenants at will and could not claim adverse possession against the true owner. The court also held that the suit for possession was within limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the plaintiffs' title was not extinguished. The judgment of the lower appellate court was confirmed, and the second appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Adverse Possession - Tenant at will - A tenant at will cannot claim adverse possession against the true owner unless there is a clear ouster and hostile possession for the statutory period - The court held that the appellants, being tenants at will, could not acquire title by adverse possession as their possession was permissive and not hostile (Paras 10-12). B) Limitation - Suit for possession - Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - A suit for possession based on title by the true owner is governed by Article 65, which provides a 12-year period from the date of possession becoming adverse - The court held that the suit was within limitation as the respondents' title was not extinguished (Paras 13-14). C) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in second appeal unless they are perverse or based on no evidence - The court held that no substantial question of law arose as the findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence (Paras 15-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the lower appellate court erred in dismissing the suit for injunction and possession, and whether the appellants had acquired title by adverse possession.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court. The suit for possession and injunction was decreed in favor of the respondents. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Adverse possession
- Tenant at will
- Suit for possession
- Limitation
- Article 65 Limitation Act
- 1963
- Section 100 CPC
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Substantial question of law
