Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a second appeal filed by the defendants against the concurrent decrees of the trial court and the first appellate court in a suit for partition and declaration of title. The plaintiff, Thangamma Nadachi, filed the suit seeking partition of the suit property and declaration of her share. The defendants, who are the appellants herein, claimed that they had acquired title by adverse possession. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, 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 recorded by the courts below were based on evidence and were not perverse. The appellants failed to establish adverse possession as they did not plead or prove the necessary elements. The suit was filed within the period of limitation. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the second appeal, confirming the concurrent findings.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - The court reiterated that a second appeal lies only on a substantial question of law and not on findings of fact. Concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. (Paras 1-10) B) Property Law - Partition - Declaration of Title - Adverse Possession - The appellants claimed title by adverse possession but failed to plead and prove the same. The courts below concurrently held that the plaintiff established title and possession within limitation. (Paras 11-20) C) Limitation - Suit for Partition - Article 65 of Limitation Act, 1963 - The suit for partition was filed within 12 years from the date of denial of title. The plaintiff's possession was established, and the suit was held to be within time. (Paras 15-18)
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, confirming the concurrent decrees of the courts below.
Law Points
- Second appeal limited to substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact not interfered with unless perverse
- adverse possession must be pleaded and proved
- limitation for filing suit for partition
- burden of proof in partition suits
