Seeganram vs Magna - 1986 Supreme(MP) 628

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : N. Awasthy.
For the Respondent: Y. K. Munshi.

Headnote:(1) Limitation Act, 1963 – S. 27 – adverse possession – basically is a question of fact.
       (2) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – S. 100 – adverse possession – basically is a question of fact – question dealt with an appreciation of evidence – not open to interference in second appeal.
       (3) Court – fees – payment of – is a matter between plaintiff and State.
        Short Note
       1. The following substantial question of law has been framed for consideration of this Court : –
       ''Whether the findings of the Courts below that the defendant has not perfected his title by adverse possession are perverse and liable to challenge in second appeal".
       2. Held : The learned counsel for the appellant took me through the oral as well as documentary evidence on record but could not point out that the lower appellate Court has misread any evidence on record nor could he point out that there was an omission on part of the lower appellate Court to consider any part of the evidence. Both the Court below have concurrently rejected the plea of adverse possession. The documents filed by the appellant in support of his claim of adverse possession do not support him at all. Whether title to a property is perfected by adverse possession is basically a question of fact and since both the Courts below have on proper appreciation of the evidence on record, recorded a concurrent finding negativing the plea of the appellant, no interference is called for in this appeal.
       3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the plaintiff has not paid proper Court fees on the relief for possession and, therefore, no relief should be granted I have perused the written statement and in reply the appellant bas admitted payment of proper Court fees by the plaintiff. But apart from this, the question of payment of Court fees is between the plaintiff and the State. On perusal of the plaint, I find that the plaintiff has not paid the proper Court fees as is required on the relief for possession. It appears that in view of the admission made by the defendant, the Courts below missed this aspect. However, under the circumstances, it is now directed that payment of proper Court fees by the plaintiff will be a condition precedent for execution of the decree.
       Appeal dismissed.