Case Note & Summary
The case involves a property dispute between two brothers, Sharadrao Daulatrao Jadhav (plaintiff) and Bapusaheb Daulatrao Jadhav (defendant, now deceased, represented by his LRs, the appellants). The suit property is a part of a structure on City Survey No.2024 in Rajarampuri, Kolhapur. The plaintiff filed a suit for possession, claiming that a registered partition deed dated 18 December 1961 allotted the suit property to his share. He alleged that his brother Bapusaheb was permitted to occupy the premises as a gratuitous licensee after the partition, and when the plaintiff needed the property, he issued a notice to vacate, which was not complied with. The defendants contested the suit, challenging the partition deed as a will executed by their father Daulatrao, and claimed ownership by adverse possession, asserting they were in possession even before 1961. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, directing the defendants to hand over possession. The first appellate court confirmed the decree. In the second appeal, the appellants argued that the partition deed was not validly executed and that they had acquired title by adverse possession. The High Court examined the evidence, noting that the partition deed was registered and described as a partition deed, and only Daulatrao had signed, but the deed listed all sons as parties. The court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on evidence and not perverse. The court also held that the defendants failed to prove adverse possession, as they did not establish hostile possession with animus possidendi. The court found no substantial question of law and dismissed the second appeal, confirming the decree for possession.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Partition Deed - Validity - Registered Deed of Partition dated 18 December 1961 - The court upheld the concurrent findings that the deed was a valid partition deed and not a will, as it was registered and described as a partition deed, and the defendants failed to prove otherwise (Paras 4-7). B) Property Law - Adverse Possession - Burden of Proof - The defendants claimed ownership by adverse possession but failed to prove that their possession was hostile, open, and continuous for the statutory period. The court held that mere long possession without animus possidendi does not constitute adverse possession (Paras 8-10). C) Property Law - Gratuitous Licence - Termination - The plaintiff permitted his brother to occupy the suit premises as a gratuitous licensee. The licence was terminated by notice, and the defendants were liable to hand over possession (Paras 5, 11). D) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The court found no substantial question of law (Paras 12-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeal raises any substantial question of law regarding the validity of the partition deed, the nature of possession, and the claim of adverse possession.
Final Decision
Second appeal dismissed. Decree for possession confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Adverse possession
- Gratuitous licence
- Partition deed
- Will
- Concurrent findings
- Second appeal
- Substantial question of law
