Case Note & Summary
The case involves a property dispute between two brothers, Gulab (plaintiff) and Ajab (defendant no.2), over a building constructed on Municipal Plot No.4 in Saoner. Gulab claimed that the plot was purchased in 1947 with funds given by his grandmother's sister, Kasabai, and that he was the owner. The municipal records showed his name. After their father Jairam's death on 01.01.1988, Gulab took possession of the building on 20.01.1988 and informed Ajab by telegram. However, in October 1988, when Gulab came to reside, he found his mother Lankabai (defendant no.1) occupying the ground floor and Ajab occupying the first floor. Gulab filed a suit for possession. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of Gulab, and the appellate court confirmed the decree. Ajab filed a second appeal under Section 100 CPC. The High Court framed a substantial question of law regarding whether the concurrent findings were perverse. The court examined the evidence, including municipal records and tax receipts, and found that the findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence. The court also rejected Ajab's plea of adverse possession, noting that he failed to prove ouster or hostile 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 examined whether concurrent findings of fact on ownership and possession could be interfered with in a second appeal. Held that findings of fact based on evidence and not perverse do not give rise to a substantial question of law (Paras 1-10). B) Property Law - Ownership - Title - Suit for Possession - The plaintiff claimed ownership based on purchase from funds provided by grandmother and municipal records. The defendant claimed joint family property. Held that the courts below correctly appreciated evidence and decreed possession in favour of the plaintiff (Paras 2-8). C) Limitation - Adverse Possession - The defendant's plea of adverse possession was rejected as the defendant failed to prove ouster or exclusive possession adverse to the plaintiff. Held that mere occupation without animus does not constitute adverse possession (Paras 8-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 raises any substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below regarding ownership and possession of the suit property.
Final Decision
The second appeal is dismissed. The concurrent decrees for possession passed by the trial court and appellate court are confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- perversity
- ownership
- possession
- limitation
- adverse possession
