Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal filed by the original defendants (appellants) against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court which confirmed the trial court's decree of partition in favor of the original plaintiff (respondent no.1). The plaintiff, Smt. Usha Koparkar, filed a suit for partition and separate possession of her share in the joint family property. The trial court decreed the suit, and the first appellate court dismissed the appeal. The appellants then filed this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court examined whether any substantial question of law arose. The court noted that the findings of fact recorded by both courts below were concurrent and based on evidence. The appellants argued that the suit was barred by limitation and that they had acquired title by adverse possession. However, the courts below found that the property was joint family property and that the defendants failed to prove ouster or adverse possession. The High Court held that no substantial question of law was involved and dismissed the appeal, confirming the concurrent findings.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court reiterated that in a second appeal, interference with concurrent findings of fact is permissible only if the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose. (Paras 1-10) B) Property Law - Partition - Limitation and Adverse Possession - The plaintiff's suit for partition was held to be within limitation as the property was joint family property and the defendants failed to prove ouster or adverse possession. The concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court were upheld. (Paras 5-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeal involves any substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below in a partition suit.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, confirming the concurrent findings of the courts below.
Law Points
- Second appeal
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- perversity
- partition suit
- limitation
- adverse possession
- Section 100 CPC
