9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Validity and correctness of the impugned judgment passed by the High Court in the second appeal. - Adverse possession claim over the property in question. - Reversal of concurrent findings by the High Court beyond the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. - Substantial question of law regarding the appreciation of evidence in relation to specific documents. - Error in reversing the concurrent findings of fact by the High Court. Analysis: The State of Kerala appealed against the High Court's judgment in a second appeal, challenging the plaintiff's claim of title over a property based on adverse possession. The trial court and the First Appellate Court both ruled against the plaintiff, stating she failed to prove adverse possession over the property. The High Court, however, reversed the concurrent findings of the lower courts, reappreciating the evidence beyond the permissible scope. The plaintiff's claim was based on Exhibits A2 to A4, which were questioned for authenticity and timing of submission. The High Court's decision was deemed erroneous by the Supreme Court, as no substantial question of law was found, and the evidence was reevaluated in line with the lower courts' reasoning. The plaintiff's counsel argued that the High Court's substantial question of law was not substantial but related to evidence appreciation, specifically Exhibits A2 to A4. The plaintiff's possession of the property was questioned due to the timing of submitting these documents and the lack of mention in the original plaint. The State's senior counsel countered, stating the respondents had been using the property for access to the National Highway from the beginning. The Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts' findings and held that the High Court erred in reevaluating the evidence beyond the permissible scope, leading to the reversal of concurrent factual findings. The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment was set aside, and no costs were awarded. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's decision to reverse the concurrent findings of fact was erroneous, as no substantial question of law was present. The substantial question of law related to the evidence regarding Exhibits A2 to A4, and the Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts' reasoning for rejecting the plaintiff's case. The respondents were given the option to approach the State Government for access to the National Highway, subject to legal considerations and without affecting any public purpose or existing access routes.
|
