NARENDRA & ORS. versus AJABRAO S/O NARAYAN KATARE (D) THROUGH LRS.

NARENDRA & ORS. versus AJABRAO S/O NARAYAN KATARE (D) THROUGH LRS.

The High Court erred by deciding the second appeal as if it were a first appeal, re-appreciating evidence and reversing factual findings not amounting to a substantial question of law. The plea of adverse possession was neither properly pleaded nor proven; respondent failed to assert exclusive ownership, specify the start of adverse possession, or provide documentary evidence. The original defendant's possession was permissive, not adverse; permission withdrawn by appellants rendered possession unauthorized, requiring restoration to appellants.

Parties
Appellant: Narendra & Ors.; Respondent: Ajabrao S/o Narayan Katare (D) through LRs.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
26 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeals allowed, impugned High Court orders set aside, judgment/decree of First Appellate Court restored, suit decreed for appellants.
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Title and Ownership, Permissive Possession, Second Appeal Standards
Civil Procedure Property Law Adverse Possession Title and Ownership Permissive Possession Second Appeal Standards

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Narendra & Ors.

Appellant

Ajabrao S/o Narayan Katare (D) through LRs.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent perfected title by adverse possession over part of the suit house?
  2. 2 Whether the High Court correctly decided the second appeal under Section 100 CPC?
  3. 3 Whether the possession was permissive or adverse to the true owners?

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred by deciding the second appeal as if it were a first appeal, re-appreciating evidence and reversing factual findings not amounting to a substantial question of law. The plea of adverse possession was neither properly pleaded nor proven; respondent failed to assert exclusive ownership, specify the start of adverse possession, or provide documentary evidence. The original defendant's possession was permissive, not adverse; permission withdrawn by appellants rendered possession unauthorized, requiring restoration to appellants.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed, impugned High Court orders set aside, judgment/decree of First Appellate Court restored, suit decreed for appellants.

Orders

  • High Court's order set aside
  • Judgment/decree of First Appellate Court dated 22.10.1991 restored