Case Note & Summary
The case involves a Second Appeal filed by the defendant Selvaraj against the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court which decreed the suit for permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiffs Rajeswari and Uri. The suit property was 2.5 cents of land in Old S.No.23/New S.No.181/4. The plaintiffs claimed that the property originally belonged to Perumal and Amirthalingam as joint family members. After Amirthalingam's death in 1984, his legal heirs included the plaintiffs and one Stalin. In 1993, a family arrangement was made between the plaintiffs and Perumal, allotting the eastern 2.5 cents to the plaintiffs and the western 2.5 cents to Perumal. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant, who owned adjacent property, attempted to interfere with their possession and filed the suit for injunction. The defendant contended that he purchased the suit property from one Vaithiyalingam, who had no title, and denied the plaintiffs' possession. The Trial Court decreed the suit, and the First Appellate Court confirmed the decree. In the Second Appeal, the High Court framed a substantial question of law regarding whether the courts below erred in decreeing the suit without proper proof of title and possession. The High Court analyzed the evidence and found that the plaintiffs failed to prove the family arrangement, as the alleged document was not produced and no witnesses supported it. The claim of adverse possession was also not established. Additionally, the plaintiffs did not implead necessary parties like Stalin and the purchaser of the western portion. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the lower courts, and dismissed the suit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - The High Court held that the Second Appeal does not involve any substantial question of law as the findings of fact by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court were concurrent and based on evidence. The appellant failed to show any perversity or error of law. (Paras 1-21) B) Property Law - Family Arrangement - Validity - The plaintiffs claimed title through a family arrangement of 1993, but the court found that the arrangement was not proved by cogent evidence. The suit for injunction was dismissed as the plaintiffs failed to establish possession and title. (Paras 3-10) C) Property Law - Adverse Possession - Burden of Proof - The plaintiffs' alternative claim of title by adverse possession was rejected as they did not plead or prove the necessary elements of hostile possession for the statutory period. (Paras 11-15) D) Civil Procedure - Necessary Parties - Non-joinder - The court noted that the plaintiffs failed to implead the co-owner Stalin and the person who allegedly purchased the western portion, which was fatal to the suit. (Paras 16-18)
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.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the Second Appeal, set aside the judgments and decrees of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court, and dismissed the original suit O.S.No.122 of 2006. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Law Points
- Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC
- Substantial Question of Law
- Concurrent Findings of Fact
- Family Arrangement
- Adverse Possession
- Necessary Parties
- Injunction Suit
