Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal filed by the original defendant against the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the first appellate court, which decreed the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction in respect of a property. The plaintiff claimed to be the owner in possession of the suit property, while the defendant asserted ownership based on a sale deed and claimed adverse possession. The trial court decreed the suit, holding that the plaintiff had proved title and possession, and that the defendant's claim of adverse possession was not established. The first appellate court confirmed the decree. In the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellant-defendant argued that the findings were perverse and that the suit was barred by limitation. The High Court examined the concurrent findings and found that they were based on evidence and not perverse. The court noted that the suit was filed within 12 years from the date of dispossession, as per Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and that the defendant failed to prove adverse possession. The court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration and dismissed the appeal.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Substantial Question of Law - The court reiterated that in a second appeal, interference with concurrent findings of fact is permissible only if the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The appellant failed to demonstrate any perversity or substantial question of law. (Paras 1-5) B) Limitation - Suit for Declaration and Injunction - Articles 58 and 65 of Limitation Act, 1963 - The suit was filed within 12 years from the date of dispossession, and the courts below correctly held it to be within limitation. The appellant's claim of adverse possession was not established. (Paras 2-4) C) Property Law - Ownership and Possession - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff proved title and possession, while the defendant failed to prove adverse possession. The concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and not perverse. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeal involves any substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arises and the concurrent findings of fact are not perverse.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- interference limited to perversity
- limitation for filing suit
- adverse possession
- ownership and possession
