Case Note & Summary
The case involves a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed by the appellants (legal representatives of the original defendant) against the judgment and decree dated 25.04.2009 in RA No.530/2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and ACJM, Karkala, which allowed the appeal filed by the respondents (plaintiffs) and decreed the suit for possession. The original suit was filed by the respondents for recovery of possession of the suit property claiming title. The appellants contended that they had perfected title by adverse possession. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed the decision and decreed the suit. The High Court, in second appeal, framed a substantial question of law regarding whether the appellant had perfected title by adverse possession and whether the suit was barred by limitation. The court examined the evidence and found that the appellants failed to prove the necessary elements of adverse possession, such as hostile animus and continuous possession for the statutory period of 12 years. The court also noted that the respondents' suit was filed within the limitation period as per Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, since the respondents' title was not disputed and the suit was for possession based on title. The High Court held that the concurrent findings of the first appellate court were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from any perversity. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the decree for possession in favor of the respondents was upheld.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Adverse Possession - Burden of Proof - The appellant claimed title by adverse possession over suit property - The courts below concurrently found that the appellant failed to prove possession adverse to the true owner for the statutory period - Held that the appellant did not establish the necessary animus or continuous possession for 12 years (Paras 5-8). B) Limitation - Suit for Possession - Article 65 of Limitation Act, 1963 - The suit was filed within 12 years from the date of dispossession - The respondent's title was not disputed - Held that the suit was not barred by limitation as the respondent's possession was within time (Paras 6-9). C) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Interference with Concurrent Findings - The High Court in second appeal cannot re-appreciate evidence unless there is a perverse finding or substantial question of law - Held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration (Paras 10-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant had perfected title by adverse possession and whether the suit was barred by limitation.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the judgment and decree of the first appellate court. The suit for possession was decreed in favor of the respondents.
Law Points
- Adverse possession
- limitation
- burden of proof
- concurrent findings
- substantial question of law
