Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a second appeal filed by the first defendant in O.S.No.17/1992 before the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Chintamani, challenging the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the first appellate court. The suit was filed by the plaintiff (respondent) seeking declaration of title and injunction in respect of suit property, claiming adverse possession. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed the dismissal. The appellant (defendant) then filed this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found that the courts below had concurrently held that the plaintiff failed to prove adverse possession for the statutory period. The High Court noted that no substantial question of law arose for consideration and that the findings of fact were based on evidence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the concurrent findings.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Interference with concurrent findings - The High Court in a second appeal cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence - Held that the courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence and the appellant failed to make out any substantial question of law (Paras 1-5).
B) Property Law - Adverse Possession - Burden of proof - The plaintiff claiming adverse possession must prove hostile possession for the statutory period of 12 years - Held that the plaintiff failed to establish that his possession was adverse to the true owner and the suit was rightly dismissed (Paras 2-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff established title by adverse possession over the suit property and whether the concurrent findings of the courts below are liable to be interfered with under Section 100 CPC.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, confirming the concurrent findings of the courts below.
Law Points
- Adverse possession
- burden of proof
- concurrent findings of fact
- Section 100 CPC
- limitation
Case Details
2017 LawText (KAR) (06) 23
Sri Umesh for Sri Y.Shiva Reddy for appellants; Sri G.Balakrishna Shastry for respondents
Sri Venkatarayappa (since dead by LRs) and others
Ramakka (since dead by LRs) and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeal against concurrent judgments in a suit for declaration of title and injunction based on adverse possession.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to set aside the concurrent judgments of the trial court and first appellate court which dismissed the suit.
Filing Reason
The appellant (defendant) was aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.
Previous Decisions
The trial court dismissed the suit; the first appellate court confirmed the dismissal.
Issues
Whether the plaintiff established title by adverse possession over the suit property.
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below are liable to be interfered with under Section 100 CPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the courts below erred in decreeing the suit.
Respondent supported the concurrent findings.
Ratio Decidendi
In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The plaintiff failed to prove adverse possession for the statutory period.
Judgment Excerpts
The first defendant in OS.No.17/1992 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Chintamani, has come up in this second appeal impugning the concurrent finding of both the courts below in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.
This RSA is filed under Section 100 of CPC against the judgement and decree dated 18.10.2001 passed in R.A.No.6/1994 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Kolar, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.02.1994 passed in O.S.No.17/1992.
Procedural History
The suit O.S.No.17/1992 was filed before the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Chintamani, which was dismissed on 26.02.1994. The plaintiff appealed in R.A.No.6/1994 before the II Additional District Judge, Kolar, which was dismissed on 18.10.2001. The defendant then filed the present second appeal R.S.A.No.1026/2001 before the High Court of Karnataka, which was dismissed on 22.06.2017.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
