Case Note & Summary
The plaintiff, Kisanlal Maniklal Rathi, filed a suit for possession of 2 gunthas of land from survey no. 75/4-A at Nandura, claiming ownership through sale deeds from 1974-1975 and alleging that the defendant, Dinkar Yashwant Patil, encroached in Summer 1976 and built a hut. The defendant claimed possession from the previous owner Motisingh under an oral sale and had been in possession for over 12 years, acquiring title by adverse possession. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on 20/09/1984, and the First Appellate Court confirmed on 19/07/1987. The plaintiff filed a second appeal. The High Court framed a substantial question of law regarding the perversity of findings. The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove his title and the encroachment, and the concurrent findings of fact were not perverse. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the defendant's adverse possession.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - The High Court in second appeal cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove his title and the alleged encroachment, and the findings of the courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence. (Paras 1-10) B) Property Law - Adverse Possession - Title by Adverse Possession - The defendant claimed title by adverse possession over the suit land. The courts below accepted the defendant's possession for over 12 years prior to the suit, and the plaintiff failed to prove his title. The High Court upheld the finding that the defendant had acquired title by adverse possession. (Paras 5-10) C) Evidence Act - Burden of Proof - Title and Possession - Sections 101, 102 Evidence Act, 1872 - The plaintiff, claiming title and possession, bears the burden to prove his title and the defendant's encroachment. The plaintiff failed to discharge this burden, and the defendant's long possession was established. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court confirming the dismissal of the suit for possession on the ground of title and encroachment suffers from any substantial question of law?
Final Decision
The second appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court confirming the dismissal of the suit are upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second appeal limited to substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact not interfered with unless perverse
- adverse possession
- burden of proof on plaintiff to prove title and encroachment
