Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, arising from a property dispute. The original plaintiff (since deceased, represented by legal representatives) filed a suit for declaration of title and possession over a piece of land. The plaintiff claimed title based on a registered sale deed executed in his favor and alternatively claimed title by adverse possession. The defendants (appellants herein) contested the suit, denying the plaintiff's title and possession. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, holding that he had proved his title and possession. The first appellate court confirmed the decree, dismissing the appeal. Aggrieved, the defendants filed the present second appeal. The High Court, after hearing the parties, framed a substantial question of law regarding whether the courts below had erred in decreeing the suit. However, upon examining the evidence, the court found that the findings of fact recorded by the lower courts were concurrent and based on proper appreciation of evidence. The court noted that the plaintiff had produced the registered sale deed and oral evidence to prove possession. The defendants failed to produce any credible evidence to rebut the plaintiff's case. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the second appeal, as the findings were not perverse. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the decree of the lower appellate court was confirmed. The court also observed that the second appeal under Section 100 CPC is not a third trial on facts and that the High Court's jurisdiction is limited to questions of law.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - The court reiterated that in a second appeal, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose. (Paras 1-10) B) Property Law - Title and Possession - Sale Deed and Adverse Possession - The plaintiff claimed title based on a registered sale deed and alternatively by adverse possession. The courts below concurrently found the plaintiff in possession and entitled to decree. The High Court upheld these findings. (Paras 1-10)
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 regarding the plaintiff's title and possession over the suit property.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, confirming the decree of the lower appellate court. No substantial question of law was found to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- concurrent findings of fact
- substantial question of law
- interference with findings of fact
- limitation
- adverse possession
- sale deed
- title
- possession
