Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal filed by the original plaintiffs (now appellants) against the judgment of the lower Appellate Court which dismissed their suit for declaration of title and injunction based on adverse possession. The plaintiffs claimed that they had acquired title by adverse possession over the suit property. The trial court had decreed the suit, but the Appellate Court reversed the finding, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove the essential elements of adverse possession, particularly animus possidendi and exclusive possession for the statutory period. The appellants challenged this finding in the High Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court, after hearing the parties, noted that the appeal was admitted on grounds 1 and 2 of the memorandum of appeal, which alleged that the lower Appellate Court erred in holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove adverse possession despite evidence. However, the Court observed that the lower Appellate Court had considered the evidence and recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiffs did not prove their plea of adverse possession. The High Court held that such concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in a second appeal unless they are shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. The Court found no perversity in the Appellate Court's reasoning and concluded that no substantial question of law arose. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - The High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal regarding adverse possession did not raise any substantial question of law warranting interference. (Paras 1-3)
B) Property Law - Adverse Possession - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff must prove hostile possession for the statutory period of 12 years. Mere possession without animus possidendi is insufficient. The lower Appellate Court's finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove adverse possession was a finding of fact not open to challenge in second appeal. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the lower Appellate Court erred in holding that the Plaintiffs failed to prove their plea of adverse possession despite evidence allegedly establishing its elements, and whether such concurrent findings of fact can be interfered with in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The second appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Adverse possession
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Second appeal
- Substantial question of law
- Burden of proof
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (02) 324
Second Appeal No.621 of 1983
Ms Leena Patil i/b Mr.P.M.Pradhan for the Appellants, Mr.S.M.Railkar i/b Mr.G.R.Rege for the Respondent Nos.1,2,3(A), 3(C), 4(A), 4(B) and 4(C)
Devu Laxman Madval (since deceased by his heirs) and others
Laxman Maloji Parab and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeal against the judgment of the lower Appellate Court dismissing the suit for declaration of title and injunction based on adverse possession.
Remedy Sought
The appellants (original plaintiffs) sought to set aside the lower Appellate Court's judgment and restore the trial court's decree in their favor.
Filing Reason
The appellants claimed that the lower Appellate Court erred in holding that they failed to prove adverse possession despite evidence.
Previous Decisions
The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs. The lower Appellate Court reversed the decree and dismissed the suit.
Issues
Whether the lower Appellate Court's finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove adverse possession is a finding of fact not open to interference in second appeal.
Whether the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal constitute substantial questions of law under Section 100 CPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the lower Appellate Court gave a finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove adverse possession when all elements were duly proved.
Appellants contended that the plaintiffs produced documents to establish adverse possession and the Appellate Court erred in not accepting them.
Ratio Decidendi
In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove adverse possession is a finding of fact, and no substantial question of law arises.
Judgment Excerpts
Though the substantial question of law was not specifically framed at the time of admission of the Second Appeal, this Court felt that ground Nos.1 and 2 of the Memorandum of Appeal raised substantial questions of law.
The lower Appellate Court has considered the evidence and recorded a finding of fact that the Plaintiffs failed to prove their plea of adverse possession. Such a finding of fact cannot be interfered with in a Second Appeal unless it is shown to be perverse.
Procedural History
The suit was originally filed by the plaintiffs in the trial court, which decreed the suit. The defendants appealed to the lower Appellate Court, which reversed the decree and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs then filed the present second appeal in the High Court, which was admitted on February 17, 1984, on grounds 1 and 2 of the memorandum of appeal. The High Court heard the appeal and dismissed it on February 2, 2005.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
