Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal filed by the original defendants (appellants) against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, North Goa, Panaji, which affirmed the trial court's decree in favor of the plaintiff-respondent (Evaristo Pinto, since deceased, represented by legal heirs). The suit was for declaration of title, possession, and permanent injunction in respect of a property situated at Marra, Pilerne, Bardez, Goa. The trial court decreed the suit, holding that the plaintiff had proved his title and that the defendants had failed to establish adverse possession. The first appellate court confirmed this decision. In the second appeal, the appellants contended that the courts below erred in appreciating the evidence and that the findings were perverse. The High Court, after hearing the parties, framed a substantial question of law regarding whether the second appeal involved any substantial question of law. The court examined the evidence and found that the concurrent findings of fact were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. The court noted that the plaintiff had produced title deeds and oral evidence to prove possession, while the defendants failed to prove their claim of adverse possession. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose and dismissed the appeal, confirming the concurrent findings.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court held that a second appeal lies only on a substantial question of law, and concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. The appellant failed to demonstrate any such error. (Paras 1-17) B) Property Law - Title and Possession - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff-respondent claimed title and possession over the suit property. The trial court and first appellate court concurrently found that the plaintiff proved title and that the defendants failed to establish adverse possession. The High Court upheld these findings. (Paras 5-15) C) Limitation - Adverse Possession - The defendants' plea of adverse possession was rejected as they failed to prove ouster or exclusive possession for the statutory period. The courts below correctly placed the burden on the defendants. (Paras 10-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeal involves any substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, particularly when the lower appellate court has affirmed the findings of the trial court based on appreciation of evidence.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arises and the concurrent findings of fact are not perverse.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- perversity
- appreciation of evidence
- limitation
- adverse possession
- title
- burden of proof
