1. Suit for declaration of title and injunction — Claim of ownership through adverse possession. (Para 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 1077
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N.Kirpal : R.P.Sethi
Basappa
Versus
Puttappa
Case No. : 3733 of 2000
Date of Decision : 7/14/00
A second appeal requires the framing of a substantial question of law. Findings of fact by the first appellate court regarding adverse possession should not be disturbed unless perverse, provided the pleadings specifically assert open, continuous, and adverse possession for the statutory period.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Framing of substantial question of law - High Court in second appeal cannot reverse a finding of fact arrived at by the first appellate court without framing a substantial question of law. (Para 8)
(B) Adverse Possession - Pleadings - To establish adverse possession, the defendant must plead that possession was open, continuous, and adverse to the interest of the plaintiff for the statutory period - A specific plea in the written statement stating continuous possession and enjoyment for over 12 years is sufficient to satisfy pleading requirements. (Paras 7, 8)
(C) Appellate Jurisdiction - Scope - High Court erred in disturbing a well-considered judgment of the lower appellate court based on a finding of fact without demonstrating perversity. (Para 9)
Facts of the case:
A suit was filed for declaration of title and injunction. The defendant contested the suit, claiming to be the real owner and asserting that title had been perfected through adverse possession since 1962. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. However, the first appellate court reversed this, holding that the defendant had perfected title by adverse possession based on oral evidence and revenue entries showing cultivation since 1963-64. The High Court, in second appeal, reversed the first appellate court's decision, citing a lack of specific pleadings regarding the commencement of adverse possession.
Findings of Court:
The High Court committed errors by failing to frame a substantial question of law, disturbing a finding of fact without justification, and incorrectly observing that the defendant had not pleaded the commencement of adverse possession.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the first appellate court's finding of adverse possession and whether the defendant's pleadings were sufficient to support a claim of adverse possession.
Ratio Decidendi: A second appeal must be based on a substantial question of law. Furthermore, where the written statement categorically states that the defendant has been in continuous, open, and adverse possession for the statutory period of 12 years, the requirement for pleading the commencement of adverse possession is met.
Result: Appeal allowed, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of the lower appellate court restored.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Plaintiff asserts title — Defendant contends title perfected via open, continuous, and adverse possession over the statutory period. (Para 4 )
3. High Court erred by disturbing findings of fact without framing a substantial question of law and overlooking specific pleadings on the period of adverse possession. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
4. A second appellate court cannot disturb a finding of fact on adverse possession without framing a substantial question of law or proving the finding is perverse. (Para 7 , 8 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court judgment set aside — First Appellate Court judgment restored. (Para 10 )
6. When can a second appellate court disturb a finding of fact regarding adverse possession?
A second appellate court may only disturb such findings if it frames a substantial question of law and finds the lower appellate court's conclusion to be perverse or unsustainable. (Para 7 , 8 )
7. What pleading is necessary to sustain a claim of adverse possession?
The claimant must specifically plead that their possession was open, continuous, and adverse to the interest of the owner for the statutory period. (Para 7 , 8 )
8. What evidence may be relied upon to prove adverse possession?
Evidence may include oral testimony and revenue records, such as entries in the cultivators column, demonstrating continuous possession over the required statutory period. (Para 6 )
B.N.KIRPAL, J.
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) COUNSEL for the petitioner states that the name of Respondent 1(f) be deleted. The same is allowed at the risk of the petitioner
(3) THE respondent deceased Puttappa had filed a suit OS No. 243 of 1978 in the Court of Munsif, Kadur for declaration of title and injunction or in the alternative for possession of the suit land. This suit was filed against Basappa, who was Puttappas brother-in-law.
(4) BASAPPA, who is represented by his legal representatives who are the appellants in this appeal, in his written statement denied the title of Puttappa. His case was that Puttappa was only an ostensible owner and Basappa was the real owner. It was further contended in the written statement that Basappa had been in possession openly, continuously and adversely to the knowledge of Puttappa right from 1962 and as such he had perfected the title by adverse possession.
(5) THE trial court by judgment dated 29-10-1980 decreed the suit holding that Puttappa was the real owner. The trial court further held that though Basappa was in possession of the land, it would not prove that he had perfected his title by adverse possession.
(6) BASAPPA filed an appeal to the Civil Judge, who allowed the same after coming to the conclusion that Basappa had perfected his title by adverse possession. In arriving at this conclusion the first appellate court relied upon the oral evidence led on behalf of Basappa as also on the revenue entries which showed Basappas name in the cultivators column since the year 1963-64. The lower appellate court observed that Basappa had been in possession of the land since 1962 and his possession was continuous for about 16 years and therefore he had perfected his title by adverse possession. The appeal filed by Basappa, as already noted, was allowed
(7) IN the second appeal, the Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court did not frame any question of law, leave alone a substantial question of law, and reversed the decision of the first appellate court by observing as follows:
"AFTER hearing the contention of the counsel, I am convinced that the finding of the appellate court cannot be sustained. The appellate courts finding is not based even upon its own discussion and prima facie, it is perverse. Even to make a plea of adverse possession, the defendant has to f prove that he was enjoying the property adversely to the interest of the plaintiff. The defendant must also specifically say/plead the time from which his possession became adverse. There is absolutely no pleading to that effect and the appellate court grossly erred in accepting the case of the defendant."
(8) THE judgment of the High Court suffers at least from three infirmities. Firstly, as already noticed, no substantial question of law was framed. Secondly, the High Court disturbed the finding of fact which had been arrived at by the lower appellate court namely that Basappa had perfected his title by adverse possession. Thirdly, the High Court observed that the defendant had not pleaded that his possession had become adverse. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the specific plea taken in the written statement in which it is categorically stated that the defendant had been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property to the knowledge of the plaintiff, openly, physically, continuously and adversely over the statutory period of 12 years and has thereby perfected his title by the right of adverse possession
(9) THE High Court, in our opinion, fell in error in allowing the second appeal and in disturbing the well-considered judgment of the lower appellate court.
(10) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of the lower appellate court restored. Parties to bear their own costs.
