Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal filed by Smt Shantabai against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Wardha, which dismissed her appeal and upheld the trial court's decree in favor of the plaintiff, Nanibai. The suit property was a house originally occupied by Ukandrao Maraskolhe, who died in 1968. His daughter Nanibai (plaintiff) claimed ownership and alleged that after her mother's death, the house was locked, but in July 1984, defendant Sonba forcibly took possession. The plaintiff sought possession and mesne profits. The defendants disputed title, claiming ownership through others. The trial court decreed the suit, holding that the plaintiff had perfected title by adverse possession. The first appellate court confirmed this. In the second appeal, the appellant raised two substantial questions of law: whether the courts below were justified in decreeing the suit based on adverse possession without a document of title, and whether mesne profits could be awarded without determining the appellant's status as licensee or trespasser. The High Court, after hearing arguments, found that the concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and not perverse. The court noted that the trial court had directed an inquiry into mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC, which was proper. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose and dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Adverse Possession - Title by Adverse Possession - Limitation Act, 1963, Article 65 - The suit for possession was decreed based on the plaintiff's claim of adverse possession over the suit property. The courts below concurrently found that the plaintiff had perfected title by adverse possession. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose as the findings were based on evidence and not perverse. (Paras 1-7)
B) Civil Procedure - Mesne Profits - Order 20 Rule 12 CPC - The appellant contended that mesne profits could not be awarded without determining the status of the appellant as licensee or trespasser. The High Court noted that the trial court had directed an inquiry into mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC, which was proper. (Paras 1, 7)
C) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - The second appeal was admitted on two substantial questions of law. The High Court found that the concurrent findings of fact were not perverse and did not give rise to any substantial question of law, hence dismissed the appeal. (Paras 1, 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the courts below were justified in decreeing the suit by holding that the respondent no.1 had perfected her title by adverse possession, and whether the decree for possession and mesne profits could be passed without determining the status of the appellant as licensee or trespasser.
Final Decision
The second appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Adverse possession
- Title by adverse possession
- Mesne profits
- Order 20 Rule 12 CPC
- Substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (01) 150
Second Appeal No. 420 of 1997
Mr Maheshwari, Advocate h/f Mr Anand Parchure, Advocate for appellant; Mr S. S. Joshi, Advocate for respondent no. 1
Smt Shantabai wd/o Sonba Madavi
Sau Nanibai wife of Udebhan Uike, Shamrao son of Janglu Irpate, Ramdas son of Govindrao Irpate
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeal against concurrent decrees for possession and mesne profits in a suit for possession based on adverse possession.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to set aside the decrees of the courts below and dismiss the suit.
Filing Reason
Appellant challenged the concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court that the plaintiff had perfected title by adverse possession and was entitled to possession and mesne profits.
Previous Decisions
Trial court decreed the suit on 19.7.1995 in RCS No. 50 of 1993; first appellate court dismissed the appeal on 19.9.1997 in RCA No. 161 of 1995.
Issues
Whether the courts below were justified in decreeing the suit by holding that the respondent no.1 had perfected her title by adverse possession.
Whether the courts below were justified in granting decree of possession without determining the status of the appellant as licensee or trespasser, and whether mesne profits could be passed under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the courts below contravened the doctrine of adverse possession by decreeing the suit without a document of title.
Appellant argued that mesne profits could not be awarded without determining whether the appellant was a licensee or trespasser.
Ratio Decidendi
The concurrent findings of fact by the courts below, based on evidence, that the plaintiff had perfected title by adverse possession, do not give rise to any substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC. The direction for inquiry into mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC is proper and does not require prior determination of the defendant's status.
Judgment Excerpts
The second appeal was admitted on 13.1.1998 on the following substantial questions of law stated in memo of appeal as 7.3 and 7.4 –
The second appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.9.1997 delivered by the Additional District Judge, Wardha in RCA No. 161 of 1995 which was dismissed with costs.
The facts which appear briefly are as under...
Parties went to trial. Learned trial Judge upon framing issues and after evidence was led by the parties, recorded findings of facts that...
The learned first appellate Court also confirmed the findings of facts recorded by the trial Court.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I have perused the impugned judgments and orders.
In the result, the second appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Procedural History
The plaintiff filed RCS No. 50 of 1993 in the Court of Civil Judge, JD, Pulgaon, which was decreed on 19.7.1995. The defendant appealed to the Additional District Judge, Wardha in RCA No. 161 of 1995, which was dismissed on 19.9.1997. The defendant then filed the present second appeal under Section 100 CPC, which was admitted on 13.1.1998 on two substantial questions of law.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order 20, Rule 12, Section 100
- Limitation Act, 1963: Article 65
