Case Note & Summary
The appellants, who were the plaintiffs in the original suit, filed a suit for declaration and possession of the suit property claiming that they were the legal heirs of one Huligappa Lamani and that the defendants were in illegal possession. The trial court, after considering the evidence, dismissed the suit holding that it was barred by limitation and that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title and possession within 12 years. The lower appellate court dismissed the appeal as time-barred. The appellants then filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The concurrent findings of fact by the courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence and could not be interfered with. The High Court dismissed the second appeal, confirming the dismissal of the suit.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Articles 64 and 65 - Suit for Declaration and Possession - Burden of Proof - The appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and possession of suit property claiming title by inheritance. The trial court dismissed the suit as barred by limitation and for failure to prove possession within 12 years. The lower appellate court dismissed the appeal as time-barred. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises as the concurrent findings of fact are based on evidence and the appellants failed to prove their case within limitation. (Paras 2-6) B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - Interference with Concurrent Findings - The High Court held that under Section 100 of CPC, the second appeal cannot be entertained unless a substantial question of law is involved. The concurrent findings of fact by the courts below, based on appreciation of evidence, cannot be interfered with in the absence of any perversity or error of law. (Paras 5-6) C) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 142 - Suit for Possession Based on Title - The court observed that the suit for possession based on title must be filed within 12 years from the date when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse. The appellants failed to prove that they were in possession within 12 years prior to the suit, and thus the suit was barred by limitation. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeal under Section 100 of CPC is maintainable when the lower appellate court dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation and the appellants failed to prove their title and possession within the period of limitation?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court dated 6.10.2012 and the trial court dated 26.7.2010.
Law Points
- Limitation Act
- 1963
- Articles 64
- 65
- 142
- Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908
- Section 100
- Adverse Possession
- Burden of Proof
- Concurrent Findings of Fact
