Case Note & Summary
The appellants, plaintiffs in the original suit, filed a suit for partition of suit properties including 16 acres of land in Sy.No.703. The trial court and the first appellate court concurrently held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to partition of the 16 acres as defendant No.6 had been in exclusive possession for over 12 years and had made improvements. The plaintiffs filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court examined the findings and held that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the plaintiffs failed to prove possession within 12 years. The court also noted that the defendant had made improvements and the plaintiffs had not contributed. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law.
Headnote
A) Hindu Law - Partition - Exclusion of Property - Co-owner in exclusive possession - The plaintiffs sought partition of suit properties including 16 acres in Sy.No.703 which was in exclusive possession of defendant No.6. The courts below held that the defendant had been in exclusive possession for over 12 years and had made improvements, and therefore the plaintiffs were not entitled to partition of that portion. Held that a co-owner in exclusive possession of a larger share cannot claim partition of that portion without accounting for improvements and that the suit is barred by limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. (Paras 1-10) B) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 65 - Suit for possession based on title - The suit for partition of the 16 acres was filed beyond 12 years from the date when the defendant's possession became adverse. The plaintiffs failed to prove that they were in possession within 12 years of the suit. Held that the suit is barred by limitation. (Paras 8-10) C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - Concurrent findings of fact - The High Court in second appeal cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a substantial question of law. The findings of the courts below that the defendant was in exclusive possession and had made improvements were based on evidence and not perverse. Held that no substantial question of law arises. (Paras 11-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to partition of 16 acres of land in suit Sy.No.703 which was in exclusive possession of defendant No.6, and whether the suit is barred by limitation.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the judgment and decree of the first appellate court. The suit for partition of 16 acres was held to be barred by limitation.
Law Points
- Partition suit
- co-owner
- exclusive possession
- limitation
- Article 65 Limitation Act
- 1963
- adverse possession
- improvements
- exclusion from partition
