Case Note & Summary
The dispute pertains to a partition suit filed by the original plaintiffs (respondents) seeking partition of ancestral property. The appellant, defendant no. 1, claimed that he had acquired exclusive title by adverse possession. The trial court and the first appellate court concurrently held that the appellant failed to prove adverse possession and that the suit was within limitation. The appellant filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court examined whether any substantial question of law arose. It noted that the findings of fact were concurrent and not shown to be perverse. The court reiterated that the burden of proving adverse possession lies on the person asserting it, and the appellant did not adduce sufficient evidence. The court also held that the suit for partition was not barred by limitation as the plaintiff's possession was deemed to be that of a co-owner. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed, and the concurrent decrees were upheld.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Adverse Possession - Burden of Proof - Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - The court held that the burden to prove adverse possession is on the person claiming it, and the appellant-defendant failed to discharge that burden. (Paras 5-6) B) Partition Suit - Concurrent Findings - Second Appeal - Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court held that no substantial question of law arose as the findings of fact by the courts below were concurrent and not perverse. (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant-defendant had perfected title by adverse possession and whether the suit was barred by limitation.
Final Decision
The second appeal is dismissed. The concurrent decrees of the courts below are upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Adverse possession
- Burden of proof
- Limitation
- Partition suit
- Concurrent findings
- Substantial question of law
