Case Note & Summary
The present appeal arises from a suit for partition and separate possession filed by Veerabasamma and Malakajamma (predecessors of some respondents) against the defendants, including Basamma and Shivayya (appellants herein). The suit properties originally belonged to Basayya, who had a son Basalingaiah and daughters (the plaintiffs). Upon Basayya's death, the khata was mutated in Basalingaiah's name. Basalingaiah died in 1983, leaving behind his daughter Basamma (appellant no.1) as his sole heir. The plaintiffs claimed that they continued to be in joint possession despite mutation. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs were not in possession and that the suit was barred by limitation. The First Appellate Court (Senior Civil Judge, Kushtagi) reversed the trial court's decision and decreed the suit, but the High Court of Karnataka, in a writ petition under Article 227, set aside the First Appellate Court's judgment and restored the trial court's dismissal. The Supreme Court, after hearing the parties, held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 227 by interfering with findings of fact that were based on evidence. The Court noted that the First Appellate Court had recorded findings on adverse possession and limitation, which were plausible and not perverse. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the First Appellate Court's judgment, thereby decreeing the suit for partition.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution - Interference with findings of fact - The High Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, ought not to interfere with findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The First Appellate Court had recorded concurrent findings on adverse possession and limitation, which were based on evidence. The High Court erred in setting aside those findings without demonstrating perversity. (Paras 10-14) B) Limitation Act - Adverse Possession - Articles 64 and 65 - Burden of proof - In a suit for partition, the plaintiff must prove possession within 12 years of the suit. The defendants set up a plea of adverse possession, and the First Appellate Court found that the plaintiffs had failed to prove possession within the period of limitation. The High Court's interference was unwarranted as the findings were plausible. (Paras 8-12) C) Partition - Limitation - Article 65 of Limitation Act, 1963 - Suit for partition - The plaintiffs' suit for partition was barred by limitation as they were not in possession of the suit properties within 12 years prior to the suit. The First Appellate Court's conclusion that the defendants had perfected title by adverse possession was based on evidence and could not be lightly interfered with. (Paras 8-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, was justified in interfering with the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court on the issue of adverse possession and limitation.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order dated 22.02.2023, and restored the judgment of the First Appellate Court (Senior Civil Judge, Kushtagi) in R.A.98/2015, thereby decreeing the suit for partition.
Law Points
- Adverse possession
- Limitation
- Partition suit
- Interference with findings of fact
- High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 227
