Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal filed by the appellants, who were defendants in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession filed by the respondent, a temple trust. The respondent claimed ownership of a property known as 'Colarjachem Bandul' and alleged that the appellants had trespassed into a portion of it. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, and the first appellate court confirmed the decree. The appellants then filed a second appeal before the Bombay High Court at Goa. The appellants contended that they had acquired title by adverse possession and that the suit was barred by limitation. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the appellants failed to prove the essential elements of adverse possession, such as continuous, uninterrupted, and hostile possession for the statutory period. The court also noted that the suit was governed by the Portuguese Civil Code, which prescribes a 15-year limitation period, and that the respondent's title was not extinguished. The court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts were based on evidence and were not perverse. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the decree in favor of the respondent.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Adverse Possession - Burden of Proof - The appellants claimed title by adverse possession over the suit property, but failed to prove continuous, uninterrupted, and hostile possession for the statutory period. The court held that the burden of proof lies on the person claiming adverse possession and must be strictly proved. (Paras 10-15) B) Limitation - Portuguese Civil Code - Applicability - The suit was governed by the Portuguese Civil Code, 1867, which prescribes a 15-year limitation period for recovery of possession. The court found that the suit was filed within time as the respondent's title was not extinguished. (Paras 16-20) C) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Interference with Concurrent Findings - The High Court in a second appeal cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The court found no substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal. (Paras 21-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants have acquired title by adverse possession over the suit property and whether the suit is barred by limitation.
Final Decision
Second Appeal dismissed; judgment and decree of the lower courts upheld
Law Points
- Adverse possession
- Burden of proof
- Limitation
- Portuguese Civil Code
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Second appeal
