Case Note & Summary
The case involves a property dispute between the appellants (original defendants) and respondents (original plaintiffs) over agricultural land. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and possession, claiming ownership based on a registered sale deed and mutation entries. The defendants denied the plaintiffs' title and claimed adverse possession. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court after a de novo consideration ordered by the High Court in a previous second appeal. The High Court, in the present second appeal, examined whether the First Appellate Court's judgment suffered from perversity or illegality. The court noted that the First Appellate Court had framed 21 points for determination and decided each on merits based on evidence. The court found that the findings of fact were concurrent and based on evidence, and the defendants failed to prove adverse possession or any perversity in the lower courts' decisions. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of title and possession in favor of the plaintiffs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - The court considered whether the First Appellate Court's judgment suffered from perversity or illegality. Held that concurrent findings of fact based on evidence cannot be interfered with in second appeal unless perverse or based on no evidence (Paras 1-10).
B) Property Law - Title and Possession - Burden of Proof - The plaintiffs claimed title and possession based on a sale deed and mutation entries. The defendants denied title and claimed adverse possession. Held that the plaintiffs successfully proved their title and possession, and the defendants failed to establish adverse possession (Paras 11-20).
C) Limitation - Adverse Possession - Article 65 of Limitation Act, 1963 - The defendants claimed adverse possession for over 12 years. Held that the defendants did not prove ouster or exclusive possession hostile to the true owner, and the suit was within limitation (Paras 21-25).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court suffers from any perversity or illegality warranting interference in second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
Second Appeal dismissed. Impugned judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court dated 30.06.2022 in R.C.A. No.256 of 1988 is confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- concurrent findings of fact
- perversity
- substantial question of law
- Order XLI Rule 31 CPC
- de novo consideration
- limitation
- adverse possession
- title
- possession
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (10) 253
Second Appeal No.30 of 2023 with CA/8839/2023
Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar i/b Mr. Anuj Ajay Fulfagar for Appellants; Mr. B.R. Kedar for Respondent Nos.1, 2, 3A, 3B & 4
Premchand Lakichand Jain (deceased) through LRs: Nirmalabai Premchand Jain, Mahendra Premchand Jain, Urmila, Kalpana, Arpana, Sadhan
Bansilal Manikchand Jain (deceased) through LRs: Supdabai Bansilal Jain, Anokchand s/o Bansilal Jain, Mangalabai Indarchand Zambad (deceased) through LRs: Dhanashree Ashish Pagariya, Tejashree Mukesh Jain, Mandabai Rajendra Chhajed
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for declaration of title and possession over agricultural land.
Remedy Sought
Plaintiffs sought declaration of title and possession of the suit property.
Filing Reason
Plaintiffs claimed ownership based on a registered sale deed and mutation entries; defendants denied title and claimed adverse possession.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court decreed suit in favor of plaintiffs (26.07.1988). First Appellate Court initially dismissed appeal (01.02.1993). High Court set aside that judgment and remanded for de novo consideration (09.09.2021). First Appellate Court then passed impugned judgment (30.06.2022) confirming Trial Court decree.
Issues
Whether the First Appellate Court's judgment suffers from perversity or illegality?
Whether the plaintiffs proved their title and possession?
Whether the defendants established adverse possession?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the First Appellate Court failed to properly consider evidence and that findings were perverse.
Respondents argued that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in second appeal and that the lower courts correctly appreciated evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to law. The First Appellate Court had framed proper points for determination and decided the appeal on merits, and its findings were based on evidence.
Judgment Excerpts
The appellants would be referred to as the 'defendants', and respondents as the 'plaintiffs'.
This Court had set aside the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court ... and relegated the matter to the First Appellate Court for de novo consideration.
Procedural History
Original suit R.C.S. No.27 of 1982 was decreed by Trial Court on 26.07.1988. First appeal R.C.A. No.256 of 1988 was dismissed on 01.02.1993. Second Appeal No.325 of 1993 was allowed on 09.09.2021, setting aside the first appellate judgment and remanding for de novo consideration. First Appellate Court then passed impugned judgment on 30.06.2022. Present Second Appeal No.30 of 2023 was filed against that judgment.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100, Order XLI Rule 31
- Limitation Act, 1963: Article 65
