Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sri B.S. Lakshman, filed a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2022 passed in R.A.No.119/2016 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan, which partly allowed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2016 passed in O.S.No.194/2012 by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Alur. The suit was filed by the appellant (plaintiff) seeking declaration of title and possession over the suit property. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the lower appellate court partly allowed the appeal but confirmed the dismissal of the suit for possession. The appellant contended that the courts below erred in not decreeing the suit. The respondents argued that the concurrent findings of fact should not be interfered with. The High Court, after hearing the parties, framed a substantial question of law regarding the perversity of the findings. The court examined the evidence and found that the plaintiff failed to prove his title and possession over the suit property. The court noted that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the plaintiff did not establish possession within 12 years. The court held that there was no perversity or illegality in the concurrent findings and dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - 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 arose in the appeal. (Paras 1-10) B) Limitation - Suit for Possession - Article 65 of Limitation Act, 1963 - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff must prove title and possession within 12 years. The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish possession within the limitation period, and the suit was barred by limitation. (Paras 5-8) C) Property Law - Title and Possession - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff must prove his title and possession. The court found that the plaintiff did not produce sufficient evidence to prove his title or possession over the suit property. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference under Section 100 CPC?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- limitation
- adverse possession
- burden of proof
- title
- possession
