Case Note & Summary
The case involves two cross suits between the appellant, Chandrakant Ramchandra Godhvinde, and the respondent, Anna Bhau Lone, concerning a property admeasuring about 771 sq. yards in Survey No.14(p) at village Khadavali, Taluka Kalyan. The appellant filed Regular Civil Suit No.560 of 1997 seeking perpetual injunction, claiming he purchased the suit property from Yeshwant Gajanan Gupte under a registered sale deed dated 22nd October 1997. He alleged that the respondent, who owned an adjoining plot, encroached upon the suit property and tried to demolish his fencing. The respondent filed Regular Civil Suit No.110 of 1998 against the appellant and the common vendor, claiming title by adverse possession. The trial court dismissed the appellant's suit and decreed the respondent's suit, holding that the respondent had perfected title by adverse possession. The first appellate court confirmed these findings. The appellant filed two Second Appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court, after hearing extensive arguments, held that no substantial question of law arose as the findings of fact were concurrent and based on evidence. The court noted that the appellant failed to prove his title and possession, while the respondent successfully established adverse possession. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - The court held that the Second Appeals did not raise any substantial question of law as the findings of fact recorded by the courts below were based on appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. The court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings. (Paras 1-5) B) Property Law - Adverse Possession - Title - Burden of Proof - The respondent claimed title by adverse possession over the suit property. The courts below found that the respondent had perfected title by adverse possession. The appellant failed to prove his title and possession. The concurrent findings were upheld. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Second Appeals raise any substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below.
Final Decision
Both Second Appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second appeal
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- interference limited to perversity
- adverse possession
- burden of proof
- title
- possession
