An appellate court cannot reverse a trial court's finding of fact on adverse possession by erroneously treating a merit-based decision as a technical rejection.

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal(Civil)...CC 9017-9018/2003

(From the judgement and order dated 09/04/2003 in RFA 372 & 435/91 of The HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE)

( With I.A.Nos.1 & 2 (Appln(s). for c/delay in filing SLP )

This Petition was called on for hearing today.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Formal service of notice is dispensed with.

Delay condoned.

Leave granted. The appeals are partly allowed. There will be no order as to costs.

(S. Thapar) (Madhu Saxena)

PS to Registrar Court Master

The signed order is placed on the file.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO...........OF 2003

(Arising out of SLP(C)Nos.......CC 9017-9018/2003)

Veerabhadrappa & Anr. Appellant (s)

Versus

Parvathamma & Anr. Respondent (s)

O R D E R

Formal service of notice is dispensed with.

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

The dispute in these cases relates to two properties described in the plaint as Schedule ‘A’ and Schedule ‘B’ properties. The respondents’ suit with regard to these properties was decreed by the trial court on merits as far as Schedule ‘A’ property was concerned. As far as Schedule ‘B’ property was concerned, the trial court appears to have upheld the defence of adverse possession raised by the appellant. Being aggrieved by the decision of the trial court both the respondents and the appellants filed separate First Appeals before the High Court. By the impugned decision the High Court upheld, on facts, the finding of the trial court insofar as it related to Schedule ‘A’ properties. The appellant’s First Appeal, therefore, was dismissed.

As far as this aspect of the case is concerned, in view of the concurrent finding of fact, we do not see any reason to interfere with the decision of the High Court. The appellants’ appeal, insofar as it relates to Schedule ‘A’ property is concerned is consequently dismissed.

However, as far as, Schedule ‘B’ property is concerned, the High Court appears to have proceeded on the erroneous basis that the trial court had rejected the respondents’ claim in respect thereto only on a technical ground. The High Court therefore allowed the appeal of the respondents and decreed the suit also as far as Schedule ‘B’ property was concerned. It appears to us that the High Court has misinterpreted the order of the trial court. There was a finding of fact by the trial court on the issue of the possession of the appellant/defendant in respect of Schedule ‘B’ property. In the circumstances, we set aside the decision of the High Court and remand the matter back to the High Court for the purpose of deciding the First Appeal of the respondent, namely, R.F.A.No.435 of 1991, in respect of Schedule ‘B’ property, on merits. The appeal of the respondents, insofar as it relates to Schedule ‘B’ property, may be disposed of as expeditiously as is conveniently possible. The appeals are accordingly partly allowed and the decision of the High Court is set aside to the extent indicated. There will be no order as to costs.