Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal filed by the original plaintiffs (appellants) against the judgment and decree of the District Court, which affirmed the trial court's dismissal of their suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction. The appellants claimed to be owners in possession of a property in Curchorem, Goa, and sought to restrain the respondents from interfering with their possession. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title and possession, and that the suit was barred by limitation. The first appellate court concurred with these findings. In the second appeal, the High Court of Bombay at Goa examined whether any substantial question of law arose. The court noted that the findings of fact recorded by both lower courts were concurrent and based on evidence. The appellants argued that the courts below misappreciated the evidence and that the suit was within limitation. However, the High Court held that the findings were not perverse and that no substantial question of law was involved. The court emphasized that under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court reiterated that a second appeal lies only on a substantial question of law and not on findings of fact concurrently recorded by both lower courts. The High Court cannot reappreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. (Paras 1-34) B) Limitation - Suit for Declaration and Injunction - Articles 58 and 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - The suit was held to be barred by limitation as the plaintiffs failed to prove possession within 12 years of the suit. The court upheld the finding that the plaintiffs were not in possession and the suit was filed beyond the prescribed period. (Paras 20-25) C) Evidence - Adverse Possession - Burden of Proof - The plaintiffs failed to establish their title or possession over the suit property. The concurrent findings that the plaintiffs were not in possession and that the suit was barred by limitation were based on proper appreciation of evidence and not perverse. (Paras 26-30)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, raises any substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below.
Final Decision
Second Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below are upheld.
Law Points
- Second appeal
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- Section 100 CPC
- limitation
- adverse possession
- ownership
- injunction
