9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Plaintiff's appeal against judgment and decree of Patna High Court, legality of High Court's remand order, validity of High Court's finding on adverse possession, jurisdiction of High Court to interfere with concurrent findings of fact. Analysis: The Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession, claiming ownership of a plot based on a Hukumanama from 1912 and adverse possession since then. The trial court and Additional Judicial Commissioner ruled in favor of the Plaintiff on both title and adverse possession. However, the High Court reversed the findings on adverse possession, remanded the case for title determination, and ultimately dismissed the suit. The Plaintiff appealed, challenging the High Court's jurisdiction to reverse concurrent findings and remand the case. The Appellant argued that the High Court erred in reversing findings on adverse possession without considering crucial evidence. The High Court's reasoning was found flawed as it ignored clear allegations in the Plaintiff's plaint regarding hostile acts of possession, consistent conduct since 1912, and lack of eviction attempts by the municipality. The High Court wrongly required possession to be more effective and public for adverse possession, contrary to legal requirements. The High Court's view that adverse possession cannot apply to land appurtenant to a tank was also deemed incorrect. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by reversing concurrent findings of fact on adverse possession and title. Citing legal precedents, the Court emphasized that High Courts cannot interfere with factual conclusions of lower courts. Consequently, the High Court's remand order and all subsequent proceedings were declared void ab initio. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgments, and decreed in favor of the Plaintiff. The Court highlighted the lack of jurisdiction in the High Court's actions and emphasized the importance of upholding concurrent findings of fact. No costs were awarded due to the peculiar circumstances of the case.
|
