Case Note & Summary
The appellants (original plaintiffs) filed a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 read with Order XLII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 15.04.2009 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Bangalore Rural District, in R.A. No. 160/2008, which dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 21.06.2008 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Bangalore Rural District, in O.S. No. 78/2006. The suit was for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of suit property. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title and possession over the suit property, and that the suit was barred by limitation. The first appellate court concurred with the findings. In the second appeal, the High Court framed a substantial question of law regarding the perversity of the concurrent findings. The court held that the findings of the courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from any perversity. The court noted that the plaintiffs had not produced any documentary evidence to prove their title, and the revenue records did not support their claim. The court also observed that the suit was filed beyond the period of limitation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Regular Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - The High Court, in a second appeal, 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) Limitation - Suit for Declaration and Injunction - Article 65 of Limitation Act, 1963 - Burden of Proof - In a suit based on title, the plaintiff must prove title within 12 years of the suit. If the plaintiff fails to prove title, the suit is barred by limitation. (Paras 11-20) C) Property Law - Adverse Possession - Burden of Proof - The person claiming adverse possession must prove hostile possession for 12 years. Mere long possession without animus possidendi does not constitute adverse possession. (Paras 21-30)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
Final Decision
The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court dated 15.04.2009 in R.A. No. 160/2008 confirming the trial court's judgment and decree dated 21.06.2008 in O.S. No. 78/2006 are upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Adverse possession
- Burden of proof
- Limitation
- Concurrent findings
- Substantial question of law
