Case Note & Summary
The dispute in this second appeal concerns a property surveyed under no.263/3 of village Tuem, Pernem, Goa. The plaintiffs, who are the appellants, claimed ownership of the property by adverse possession, while the respondent, Devastan of Shri Bhagwati of Tuem, claimed it as part of its temple land. The plaintiffs' house and a temple of Sri Sateri belonging to the defendant are located on the same survey number. The defendant also owns adjacent survey no.263/1, which houses the main temple of Sri Bhagwati and other affiliate temples. The plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No.9/96 seeking declaration of ownership and injunction. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed the dismissal. In the second appeal, the High Court examined whether the plaintiffs had proved their title. The court noted that the plaintiffs failed to establish that their possession was exclusive, hostile, and adverse to the defendant. The court also observed that the defendant temple was in possession of the main temple and other structures on the adjacent land, and the plaintiffs' house was located on the same survey number. The court held that the temple's ownership of the suit property was presumed, and the plaintiffs could not displace it without clear evidence. The High Court found no substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of the courts below.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Adverse Possession - Burden of Proof - The plaintiffs claimed ownership of a portion of land by adverse possession, but failed to prove that their possession was exclusive, hostile, and adverse to the defendant temple. The court held that mere possession without ouster of the true owner does not establish adverse possession. (Paras 4-10) B) Property Law - Temple Property - Presumption of Ownership - The defendant temple was in possession of the main temple and other structures on adjacent land, and the plaintiffs' house was located on the same survey number. The court held that the temple's ownership of the suit property was presumed, and the plaintiffs could not displace it without clear evidence. (Paras 2-3) C) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Interference with Findings of Fact - The High Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court that the plaintiffs had not proved their title. The court held that no substantial question of law arose. (Para 11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiffs have proved their title to the suit property by adverse possession or otherwise, and whether the courts below erred in dismissing the suit.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court that the plaintiffs had not proved their title by adverse possession.
Law Points
- Adverse possession
- Burden of proof
- Ouster
- Exclusive possession
- Presumption of ownership in favour of temple
