Case Note & Summary
The present appeals arise out of a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction filed by the appellants (plaintiffs) against the respondent (defendant), a religious mutt. The plaintiffs claimed title and possession over the suit property based on a registered sale deed dated 22.05.1969 executed by the defendant's predecessor-in-interest. The defendant contested the suit, denying the plaintiffs' title and possession, and asserting that the sale deed was void as the property belonged to the mutt and the executant had no authority to sell. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession and that the defendant was in possession. The first appellate court confirmed the dismissal. The plaintiffs filed second appeals 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 plaintiffs were not in possession and that the defendant was in possession. The High Court noted that the plaintiffs' claim of adverse possession was not established. The court further observed that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, as the findings of fact were based on evidence and were not perverse. Consequently, the High Court dismissed both second appeals, upholding the judgments and decrees of the courts below.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The court held that no substantial question of law arose in the appeals. (Paras 1-10) B) Property Law - Declaration of Title and Injunction - Burden of Proof - The plaintiffs, who sought declaration of title and permanent injunction, failed to prove their possession over the suit property as on the date of the suit. The courts below concurrently held that the plaintiffs were not in possession and that the defendant (mutt) was in possession. The High Court affirmed these findings. (Paras 5-10) C) Limitation - Adverse Possession - The plaintiffs' claim based on adverse possession was not established as they failed to prove continuous, hostile, and exclusive possession for the statutory period. The courts below rightly rejected the claim. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeals involve any substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below.
Final Decision
Both second appeals are dismissed. The judgments and decrees of the courts below are confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- concurrent findings of fact
- substantial question of law
- limitation
- adverse possession
- burden of proof
