Case Note & Summary
The present second appeal arises from a suit for possession and mesne profits filed by the original plaintiff (respondent) against the original defendant (appellant) in respect of agricultural land. The plaintiff claimed that he was the owner and in possession of the suit property, but the defendant had trespassed and dispossessed him. The defendant contended that he had been in possession for more than 12 years and had acquired title by adverse possession. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the defendant had failed to prove adverse possession. On appeal, the first appellate court reversed the finding on adverse possession and held that the defendant had perfected title by adverse possession, but still decreed the suit for possession and mesne profits in favor of the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff had better title. The defendant filed the second appeal challenging the concurrent findings. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the courts below had concurrently held that the defendant was in possession for over 12 years and had acquired title by adverse possession. The High Court noted that the plaintiff's suit was based on title, and the defendant had set up adverse possession. The trial court had erroneously held that the defendant failed to prove adverse possession, but the first appellate court corrected this. However, the first appellate court still decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, which was inconsistent. The High Court observed that the concurrent findings of fact were not perverse and no substantial question of law arose. The appeal was dismissed, and the decree of the first appellate court was upheld. The court also upheld the award of mesne profits as modified by the first appellate court.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Adverse Possession - Limitation - Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - The suit for possession was filed by the plaintiff claiming title and possession, but the defendant set up adverse possession for over 12 years. The trial court and first appellate court concurrently found that the defendant had perfected title by adverse possession. The High Court in second appeal held that no substantial question of law arose as the findings were based on evidence and not perverse. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The High Court reiterated that the scope of second appeal is limited to substantial questions of law. 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 1-10) C) Property Law - Mesne Profits - The trial court granted mesne profits from the date of suit till delivery of possession. The first appellate court modified the rate. The High Court upheld the award of mesne profits as the defendant was in wrongful possession after the period of adverse possession was completed. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the respondent's adverse possession and the appellant's lack of exclusive title are perverse or based on no evidence, and whether any substantial question of law arises in the second appeal.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the courts below. The decree of the first appellate court was confirmed.
Law Points
- Adverse possession
- Limitation
- Concurrent findings
- Second appeal
- Substantial question of law
- Mesne profits
- Title
- Possession
