Case Note & Summary
The appellants, original plaintiffs, filed a suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction in respect of agricultural land. They claimed that the suit property was ancestral and that the sale deed executed by the original owner in favor of respondent No.1 was void. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title and that the suit was barred by limitation. The first appellate court confirmed the findings. In the second appeal, the High Court held that no substantial question of law arose as the findings were concurrent and based on evidence. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court reiterated that in a second appeal, the High Court can interfere only if there is a substantial question of law. Concurrent findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence cannot be re-opened unless perverse or based on no evidence. (Paras 1-10) B) Property Law - Title and Ownership - Burden of Proof - The appellants, as plaintiffs, failed to prove their title over the suit property. The courts below concurrently held that the sale deed executed by the original owner in favor of the respondents was valid and that the appellants had no right, title or interest. (Paras 5-8) C) Limitation - Suit for Declaration - Article 58 Limitation Act, 1963 - The suit was filed beyond the period of limitation as the cause of action arose in 1985 when the sale deed was executed, but the suit was filed in 1995. The courts below rightly dismissed the suit as barred by limitation. (Paras 6-9)
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.
Final Decision
The Second Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree of the first appellate court confirming the dismissal of the suit are upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- concurrent findings of fact
- substantial question of law
- interference with findings of fact
- limitation for filing suit
- adverse possession
- burden of proof
