Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal arising from a property dispute where the appellant claimed title by adverse possession over a suit property. The trial court and the first appellate court had concurrently dismissed the appellant's suit, holding that the appellant failed to prove adverse possession for the statutory period. The appellant then filed a second appeal before the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The High Court examined whether any substantial question of law arose for consideration. The court noted that the lower appellate court had thoroughly analyzed the evidence and recorded findings that the appellant's possession was not hostile to the true owner. The High Court held that in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The appellant could not demonstrate any perversity. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed, and the concurrent findings were upheld.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court reiterated that in a second appeal, the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact only if they are perverse or based on no evidence. The appellant failed to demonstrate any perversity in the findings of the lower appellate court regarding adverse possession. (Paras 1-38) B) Property Law - Adverse Possession - Burden of Proof - Limitation Act, 1963, Article 65 - The plaintiff claiming adverse possession must prove possession hostile to the true owner for the statutory period of 12 years. The lower appellate court correctly held that the appellant failed to establish such possession. (Paras 10-25) C) Civil Procedure - Concurrent Findings - Interference in Second Appeal - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The High Court cannot reappreciate evidence in a second appeal unless the findings are shown to be perverse. The appellant's challenge to the concurrent findings was rejected as no substantial question of law arose. (Paras 26-38)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeal involves any substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower appellate court regarding the claim of adverse possession.
Final Decision
Second Appeal No. 5 of 2007 is dismissed. The concurrent findings of the lower courts are upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Adverse possession
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Second appeal
- Substantial question of law
- Perversity
- Limitation
