9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 1098X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s follows: The appellant-plaintiff filed O.S. No.78 of 1990 before the Sub-Court, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh against the respondent-defendant. The Trial Court by the judgment and order dated 27.06.1995 held that the plaintiffs are the owners of the schedule property and they being the owners of the schedule property are entitled to possession. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial court, the respondent-defendant preferred an appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. By judgment and order dated 14.06.2001, the first appellate court confirmed the Trial Court's judgment. The respondent-defendant preferred a second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... volved in any case, it shall formulate that question. (5) The appeal shall be heard on the question so formulated and the respondent shall, at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such question: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law, not formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question. 5. A perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the High Court does not show that any substantial question of law has been formulated or that the second appeal was heard on the question, if any, so formulated. That being so, the judgme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sive and there was no pleading or proof as to when it became adverse and hostile. These findings recorded by the two courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence and the material on record and there was no perversity, illegality or irregularity in those findings. If the defendant got the possession of suit land as a lessee or under a batai agreement then from the permissive possession it is for him to establish by cogent and convincing evidence to show hostile animus and possession adverse to the knowledge of the real owner. Mere possession for a long time does not result in converting permissive possession into adverse possession Thakur Kishan Singh v. Arvind Kumar AIR 1995 SC 73 . Hence the High Court ought not to have inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
