ROOP SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS versus RAM SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 605 · Decided: 28-03-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

ROOP SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. 
v. 
RAM SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. 
MARCH 28, 2000 
[M.B. SHAH AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : 
S. l 00-Second appeal-Jurisdiction of High Court-Agricultural land-
Illegal possession-Suit by owner for restoration of possession-Defendant 
C 
contending purchase of land-Also claiming to have perfected title by adverse 
possession-Trial Court decreed the suit-Appellate Court affirmed the de-
cree-High Court in seco11d appeal re-appreciating evidence and setti11g aside 
findings of fact recorded by courts below-Held, s.100 does not confer any 
jurisdiction on High Court to inter:fere with pure questions of facf...i.Land 
having been given to defendaiit on batai, it is for him to establish hostile 
D 
animus and possession adverse to the knowledge of the owner-Mere posses-
sion for a long time does not result in converting pennissive possession into 
adverse possession-Adverse possession-Transfer of Property Act, 1882, 
s.53A. 
The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit against the respondent for 
recovery of certain agrkulturnl land alleging that the latter was in 
illegal possession thereof. The defendant denied that he was a trespasser 
and contended inter alia that he had purchased the land 14 years prior to 
the filing of the suit and had paid full sale consideration to the plaintiff; 
E 
that his possession was protected under Section 53A of the Transfer of · F 
Property Act, 1882; that he acquired the title by adverse possession. The 
trial court decreed the suit holding that the defendant did not make the 
necessary pleading for getting protection under Section 53A of the Act; 
that, even otherwise, defendant did not produce the so-called sale deed, 
and that the defendant failed to prove adverse possession because he 
specifically pleaded that he had got possession of the land as a result of 
contract with the plaintiff. 
G 
The appeal filed by the defendant was dismissed by the first 
appellate court, inter alia, holding that the land had been given to the 
defendant on 'batai'. The second appeal filed by the defendant was 
H 
605 
606 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2000] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
allowed by the High Court. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff filed the 
present appeal. 
It was contended for the appellant that the High Court failed to raise 
and decide substantial question of law; and_ that the High Court erred in 
re-appreciating the evidence considered by the trial court and the first 
B 
appellate court; and arrived at a conclusion contrary to the evidence on 
record. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Under Section 100 of the CPC jurisdiction of the High 
C . Court to entertain a second appeal is confined only to such appeals-which 
involve substantial question of law and it does not confer any jurisdiction 
on the High Court to interfere with pure question of fact. That apart, at 
the time of disposing of the matter the High Court not even notice that 
question of law formulated by it at the time of admissio.n of the second 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
appeal as there is no reference of it in the impugned judgment. (610-D-E] 
1.2. Even with regard to appreciation of evidence, the High Court 
materially erred in considering the evidence of witnesses for holding that 
defendant had been in possession for 15-16 years from the date of the suit 
and that possession being not permissive and adverse to the title of the 
plaintiff, would ripen into perfect title. This finding is quite contrary to 
the evidence of the witnesses and the finding given by both the courts 
below who after appreciating the evidence of witnesses have specifically 
arrived at the conclusion that the witnesses have nowhere stated that 
defendant asserted his hostile title. (611-C-D] 
1.3. The fact finding courts after appreciating the evidence held that 
the defendant entered into possession of the premises as a bataidar, that is 
to say, as a tenant, and his possession was permissive and there was no 
pleading or proof as to when it became adverse and hostile. These findings 
recorded by· two courts below were based on proper appreciation of 
evidence and material on record and there was no perversity, illegality or 
irregularity in those findings. If the defendant got the possession of suit 
land . as a lessee or under a batai agreement then, from the permissive 
possession, it is for him to establish by cogent and convincing evidence to 
show hostile animus and possession adverse to the knowle

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.