9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (2) TMI 251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icipality from disturbing the possession of the Plaintiff. It appears that prior to the suit, proceedings Under Section 145 were started between the parties in which the Magistrate found that the Plaintiff was not in possession but upheld the possession of the Defendant on the land until evicted in due course of law. 2. In the suit the Plaintiff based his claim in respect of plot No. 1735, Ward No. 1 of Ranchi Municipality on the ground that he had acquired title to the land by virtue of a Hukumanama granted by him by the landlord as far back as 17th April, 1912 which is Exhibit 18. Apart from the question of title, the Plaintiff further pleaded that even if the land belonged to the Defendant municipality, he had acquired title by prescr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his appeal by special leave. 4. Appearing for the Appellant, Mr. V.S. Desai, submitted two points before us. In the first place, he urged that the first judgment of the High Court by which it reminded the matter to the trial court for a finding on the question of title was legally erroneous inasmuch as the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by reversing pure finding of fact given by the two courts below in the question of adverse possession as also on the question of title. 5. Secondly, it was contended that even so the finding of the High Court on the question of adverse possession was given without at all considering the materials and evidence on the basis of which the two courts ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority of this Court taking a contrary view or overriding the decisions that it is open to the Appellant to assail even the first judgment of the High Court and if we hold that this judgment was legally erroneous then all the subsequent proceedings, namely, the order of remand, the order passed after remand, the appeal and the second judgment given by the High Court in appeal against the order of remand would become non-est. 7. We have gone through the judgment of the High Court dated 17th February, 1967 and we find that the High Court has reversed the findings of fact recorded by the two courts below on the question of adverse possession without at all displacing the reasons given by the courts below of considering the important circums ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to time without any protest from the Defendant. During the period of 45 years no serious attempt was made by the municipality to evict the Plaintiff knowing full well that he was asserting hostile title against the municipality in respect of the land. For these reasons, therefore, the first ground on which the High Court based its finding cannot be supported. 8. It was then observed by the High Court that mere sporadic acts of possession exercised from time to time would not be sufficient for the acquisition of title by adverse possession. As discussed above, the High Court has not at all cared even to go through the evidence regarding the nature of the acts said to have been committed by the Appellant nor to find out whether they were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order of the magistrate in the case Under Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure. Additional Judicial Commissioner (Re-Title) There can be no doubt that Exts. 5 to 5(g) relate to the same lands for which the Hukumanama (Ext. 18) was granted as they are for the same area as given in the Hukumanama and the first of these namely, Ext. 5 is for the very first year after the settlement and is dated 20.5.1913. Certainly by the Hukumanama (Ext. 18), which is unregistered document the land in suit could be settled and it could create good title in favour of the settle as the settlement was for agricultural purpose and was accompanied by the delivery of possession and grant of rent receipts............... P. Ws. 1, 2, 6, 9 and 8 (Plaintiff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n a perusal of the first judgment of the High Court we are satisfied that the High Court clearly exceeded its jurisdiction Under Section 103 in reversing pure concurrent findings of fact given by the trial court and the then appellate court both on the question of title and that of adverse possession. In the case of Mst. Kharbuja Kuer v. Jangbahadur Rai (1963) 1 SCR 456 : AIR 1963 SC 1203 this Court held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain second appeal on findings of fact even if it was erroneous. In this connection this Court observed as follows: It is settled law that High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal on the ground of erroneous finding of fact. As the two courts approached the evidence fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
