Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a property dispute between the appellants (defendants) and the respondents (plaintiffs) over a piece of land in Sankhalim, Goa. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and possession, claiming that they were the owners of the suit property and that the defendants had no right or interest therein. The defendants contested the suit, asserting that they had acquired title by adverse possession. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the plaintiffs had proved their title and possession, and that the defendants had failed to prove adverse possession. The first appellate court confirmed the findings. The defendants then filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The court observed that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below were based on evidence and were not perverse. The court also noted that the defendants had not led any evidence to prove their claim of adverse possession. The 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 a second appeal lies only on substantial questions of law and not on questions of fact. Concurrent findings of fact by both lower courts cannot be interfered with unless shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. (Paras 1-10) B) Property Law - Title and Possession - Burden of Proof - The plaintiffs, as owners, must prove their title and possession. In this case, the plaintiffs succeeded in proving their title through documentary evidence and their possession through oral and documentary evidence. The defendants failed to prove their claim of adverse possession. (Paras 5-8) C) Evidence Act - Adverse Possession - Burden on Defendant - The defendant claiming adverse possession must prove hostile possession for the statutory period. The defendants did not lead any evidence to establish their possession adverse to the plaintiffs. (Paras 7-8)
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, holding that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and were not perverse. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC limited to substantial questions of law
- concurrent findings of fact not interfered with unless perverse
- burden of proof on plaintiff to prove title and possession
- adverse possession requires clear and unequivocal evidence.
