Case Note & Summary
The case involves two second appeals arising from a property dispute between the legal heirs of Madhavrao Ramchandra More (appellants in SA/66/2003 and respondents in SA/67/2003) and Rajendra Sahakari Griha Nirman Sanstha Maryadeet, a co-operative housing society (respondent in both appeals). The property in question is land in Kolhapur. The society claimed to have purchased the land from the original owner and obtained possession, while the appellants claimed to be co-owners and in possession. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the society, holding that the society was in possession and the appellants had no title. The first appellate court confirmed the decree. In the second appeals, the appellants argued that the findings were perverse and that substantial questions of law arose, including issues of limitation, adverse possession, and ouster. The High Court examined the concurrent findings and held that they were based on evidence and not perverse. The court noted that the appellants failed to prove ouster or adverse possession. The court also found that the society had been in possession and had constructed houses for its members. The court dismissed both appeals, holding that no substantial question of law arose under Section 100 CPC. The court upheld the concurrent findings and confirmed the decree in favor of the society.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - The court considered whether concurrent findings of fact by the lower appellate court can be interfered with in a second appeal. Held that unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence, no substantial question of law arises. The court found no perversity in the concurrent findings regarding possession and title. (Paras 1-42) B) Property Law - Co-ownership - Ouster - Adverse Possession - The dispute involved co-owners of property; the appellants claimed exclusive possession and ouster of the respondent-society. Held that mere possession by one co-owner does not constitute ouster unless there is clear evidence of denial of title and adverse possession for the statutory period. The court upheld the finding that the respondent-society was in possession and the appellants failed to prove ouster. (Paras 10-30) C) Limitation - Suit for Possession - Article 65 of Limitation Act, 1963 - The suit was filed by the respondent-society for possession based on title. Held that the burden was on the appellants to prove adverse possession for 12 years, which they failed to discharge. The suit was within limitation as the respondent's title was not extinguished. (Paras 20-25) D) Co-operative Societies - Membership - Transfer of Shares - Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - The respondent-society claimed membership and transfer of shares from the original owner. The court noted that the society had been in possession and had constructed houses for its members. The findings of fact regarding membership and transfer were not challenged on any substantial question of law. (Paras 15-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeals involve any substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, particularly when the findings of fact by the lower appellate court are concurrent and based on appreciation of evidence.
Final Decision
Both second appeals are dismissed. The concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court are upheld. No substantial question of law arises. The decree in favor of the respondent-society is confirmed.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- perversity
- appreciation of evidence
- limitation
- adverse possession
- co-ownership
- ouster
- partition
- Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act
- 1960
