Case Note & Summary
The present second appeal was filed by the original defendants No.2 to 4 against the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Latur, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 58 of 1995, which confirmed the decree of the trial court in Regular Civil Suit No. 58 of 1995. The suit was filed by the original plaintiff (respondent No.1) seeking partition and separate possession of his share in the suit property, claiming it to be joint family property. The defendants contested the suit, denying the joint nature of the property and claiming exclusive ownership by adverse possession. The trial court decreed the suit, holding that the property was joint family property and the plaintiff was entitled to a share. The first appellate court confirmed this decree. In the second appeal, the appellants argued that the courts below erred in law and fact, and that substantial questions of law arose regarding the nature of the property, limitation, and adverse possession. The High Court, after hearing counsel, found that the findings of fact recorded by the courts below were concurrent and based on evidence. The court noted that the defendants failed to prove ouster or adverse possession. The court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - The appeal challenged concurrent findings of fact in a partition suit. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises as the findings of fact regarding joint family property and entitlement to share were based on evidence and not perverse. (Paras 1-10) B) Hindu Law - Partition - Joint Family Property - The suit property was held to be joint family property based on oral and documentary evidence. The courts below concurrently found that the plaintiff had proved his share. (Paras 5-8) C) Limitation - Adverse Possession - The defendants' claim of adverse possession was rejected as they failed to prove ouster or exclusive possession adverse to the plaintiff. The concurrent findings on limitation were upheld. (Paras 7-9)
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 in a partition suit.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, confirming the decrees of the courts below. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- concurrent findings of fact
- no substantial question of law
- partition suit
- joint family property
- limitation
- adverse possession
