AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
F. M. Reis, J.—Heard Shri Andrade, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants. MCA-Nos.26-30-12. The above Appeal challenges that Judgments passed by the Courts below whereby the suit filed by the Appellants to declare that the Appellants have become the owners by adverse possession of the property surveyed under no.16-A of P.T. Sheet no. 14 came to be rejected.
Shri Andrade, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, has pointed out that the suit property has been in possession of the Appellants from the year 1952. Learned Counsel further pointed out that in the year 1952, the Appellants have purchased half of the property pursuant to a Sale Deed which portion is presently surveyed in the City Survey Records under chalta no. 16. Learned Counsel further pointed out that in the said property surveyed under no. 16, the Appellants have put up their residential house and that the adjoining area surveyed under no. 16-A was in their possession. Learned Counsel further pointed out that in view of the fact that the possession of the property was with the Appellants, they are entitled to seek a declaration that they have become owners of the said suit property by prescription. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Appellants have also filed an application for amendment to incorporate the fact that the Appellants have acquired title to the suit portion of the property by prescription. Learned Counsel has taken me through the Judgment passed by the Courts below and pointed out that the Courts below have erroneously appreciated the evidence on record and have wrongly dismissed the suit filed by the Appellants. Learned Counsel has further pointed out that there are substantial questions of law which requires interference by this Court in the present Appeal u/s 100 C. P.C.
Upon hearing the learned Counsel and on perusal of the impugned Judgments as well as on perusal of the pleadings of the parties, there are no pleadings incorporated therein as to from when the Appellants are in possession of the suit property. Merely making vague allegations that they have acquired right of prescription to the suit property is not sufficient to claim that they are entitled to the possession of the suit portion. Both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the Appellants have failed to establish that they are in possession of the suit portion. These findings of fact cannot be re-appreciated by this Court u/s 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. Admittedly, from the records it reveals that the Appellants have purchased the property presently surveyed under no. 16 which is stated to be having an area of 249 square metres. It is also not in dispute that in the said portion of the property purchased by the Appellants, a residential house is erected. It is not the case of the Appellants that by putting up such construction any area of the property belonging to the Respondents was in their occupation.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that there is no substantial question of law which arises to be considered u/s 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned Judge has also noted that whilst creating the survey no. 16-A, which is the suit portion, the Appellants were present and did not challenge the Order of the Inquiry Officer. Apart from that, the learned Judge disbelieved the case of the Appellants that they were in possession of the suit property for the last thirty years. Merely filing an application for amendment to incorporate the fact that the Appellants have acquired the right of prescription would not suffice to claim title by prescription. Even assuming that the proposed amendment is allowed, it would not support the case of the Appellants in any manner as the Appellants have failed to establish their possession over the suit property. Hence, there is no substantial question of law which requires any consideration u/s 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. Hence, the Second Appeal stands dismissed.