Case Note & Summary
The second appeal arose from a suit for possession and mesne profits filed by the original plaintiff (since deceased, represented by legal heirs) against the defendants (also deceased, represented by legal heirs) in respect of agricultural land. The plaintiff claimed title as the sole surviving heir of the deceased owner, while the defendant asserted adverse possession. The trial court decreed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed the decree. In the second appeal, the High Court examined whether any substantial question of law arose. The court noted that the findings of fact regarding title and possession were concurrent and not shown to be perverse. The defendant's plea of adverse possession was rejected as the possession was found to be permissive. The court also considered the issue of limitation and held that the suit was within time. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
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 only interfere if there is a substantial question of law. Concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and first appellate court cannot be re-appreciated unless perverse or based on no evidence. (Paras 1-10) B) Property Law - Adverse Possession - Limitation - Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - The plaintiff's suit for possession based on title was held to be within limitation as the defendant failed to prove adverse possession for the statutory period. The court upheld the finding that the defendant's possession was permissive. (Paras 5-8) C) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Succession - Heirs - Sections 8, 9, 10 - The property devolved upon the plaintiff as the sole surviving heir of the deceased owner, and the defendant, being a distant relative, had no right to retain possession. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeal involves any substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings of the courts below.
Final Decision
The second appeal is dismissed. The concurrent decrees of the trial court and first appellate court are confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- concurrent findings of fact
- substantial question of law
- limitation
- adverse possession
- mesne profits
- Hindu Succession Act
- 1956
