The Apex Court upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court — Clarified the principles governing the scope of Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)

Reaffirmed that under Section 100 CPC, findings of fact cannot be disturbed in Second Appeal unless they are perverse — Cited precedent in Hero Vinoth v. Seshammal (2006) 5 SCC 545. Held that permissive possession cannot mature into adverse possession without clear hostile animus. Clarified that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by reappreciating facts instead of addressing substantial questions of law. (Paras 6, 7, 10, 11, 12)

Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment — Upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial and First Appellate Courts. Directed the defendant to vacate the suit premises within three months — Ordered payment of all arrears and dues.

Major Acts:

1. Constitution of India (COI) — Interpretation of Judicial Powers

2. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 100 — Scope of Second Appeal

3. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 106 — Termination of Tenancy

Subjects:

Eviction — Second Appeal — Adverse Possession — Substantial Question of Law — Landlord-Tenant Relationship

Nature of Litigation: Civil Appeal arising from an eviction suit and questions related to adverse possession and title of property.

Relief Sought: The appellant sought eviction of the respondent from the suit premises — Recovery of arrears of rent — Damages for unauthorized occupation.

Reason for Filing: The respondent claimed adverse possession and oral gift of the property — Disputed landlord-tenant relationship — Failure to vacate after termination notice.

Prior Decisions:

1. Trial Court — Decreed the suit in favor of the appellant on 12th October 2007 — Held the plaintiff to be the legally adopted son and rightful owner — Ordered eviction and payment of arrears and damages.

2. First Appellate Court — Affirmed Trial Court’s findings on 29th January 2011 — Dismissed the appeal with costs.

3. High Court of Orissa — Reversed concurrent findings on 20th June 2022 — Held that landlord-tenant relationship was not established.

Issues:

a) Whether the High Court was justified in overturning concurrent findings of the lower courts in the Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC. b) Whether the defendant had perfected title over the suit premises through adverse possession. c) Whether the plaintiff’s ownership claim through adoption was legally substantiated.

d) Whether the First Appellate Court adequately addressed all issues framed by the Trial Court.

Submissions/Arguments:

Plaintiff-Appellant:

• Asserted legal adoption and inheritance of the property.

• Established landlord-tenant relationship since 1974.

• Argued that the defendant’s claim of oral gift lacked legal standing and documentary proof.

Defendant-Respondent:

• Denied adoption and ownership claim of the plaintiff.

• Asserted ownership through adverse possession and oral gift.

• Argued absence of a formal lease deed.