Case Note & Summary
The case involves two second appeals arising from property disputes between the appellants (plaintiffs in O.S.No.4381 of 2011) and the respondents (defendants). The appellants claimed that the suit property originally belonged to the second plaintiff's mother, Sarathammal, who purchased it in 1972. They alleged that a sale deed dated 20.08.1984 purportedly executed by Sarathammal in favor of the first defendant was forged, and that the subsequent sale to the second defendant was also invalid. The appellants sought declaration and permanent injunction. The respondent (V.Sujatha) filed a separate suit for bare injunction, claiming title through the sale deeds. The trial court dismissed the appellants' suit and decreed the respondent's suit, holding that the sale deed was valid and that the defendants had perfected title by adverse possession. The first appellate court confirmed these findings. In the second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact did not raise any substantial question of law. The court noted that the mother had not challenged the sale deed during her lifetime, and the appellants failed to prove forgery. The court also found that the defendants had been in possession for over 12 years, barring the suit by limitation. The appeals were dismissed, and the judgments of the lower courts were upheld.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Concurrent Findings of Fact - The High Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and first appellate court regarding the validity of a sale deed and adverse possession, as no substantial question of law arose. (Paras 1-20) B) Property Law - Forgery of Sale Deed - Burden of Proof - The plaintiffs failed to prove that the sale deed executed by their mother in 1984 was forged, as the mother had not challenged the document during her lifetime and the plaintiffs' evidence was insufficient. (Paras 6-15) C) Limitation - Adverse Possession - The defendants had been in possession for over 12 years, perfecting title by adverse possession, and the suit was barred by limitation. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below regarding the validity of the sale deed and adverse possession raise any substantial question of law for interference in second appeal.
Final Decision
Both second appeals are dismissed, confirming the judgments and decrees of the lower courts. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- concurrent findings of fact
- no substantial question of law
- forgery of sale deed
- adverse possession
- limitation
