Concurrent findings in second appeal stand absent a substantial question of law; permissive possession cannot mature into adverse possession.

In second appeal, a High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or disturb concurrent findings of fact unless a substantial question of law arises under Section 100 CPC; the concurrent findings that the defendant entered as a bataidar were therefore restored. The defendant also failed to establish acquisition of title by adverse possession, because permissive possession does not become hostile without clear assertion and proof of adverse title, and mere long possession is insufficient. Protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act also failed for want of a proved concluded agreement and supporting evidence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could interfere in second appeal with concurrent findings of fact in the absence of a substantial question of law. (ii) Whether the defendant proved acquisition of title by adverse possession or protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could interfere in second appeal with concurrent findings of fact in the absence of a substantial question of law.

Analysis: The jurisdiction in second appeal is confined by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to cases involving a substantial question of law. Findings of the trial court and the first appellate court, based on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, showed that the defendant entered possession as a bataidar and that there was no perversity or illegality in those findings. The High Court reappreciated evidence and interfered with factual findings without demonstrating a substantial question of law.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in disturbing the concurrent findings of fact.

Issue (ii): Whether the defendant proved acquisition of title by adverse possession or protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Analysis: The defendant failed to prove any concluded agreement for sale or production of the alleged document, and the evidence showed that possession was initially permissive as batai possession. Permissive possession does not become adverse unless hostile title is clearly asserted and proved by overt acts, and mere long possession is insufficient. The plea of Section 53A also could not be sustained on the pleadings and proof, and the plea of adverse possession was inconsistent with the asserted contractual entry into possession.

Conclusion: The defendant did not acquire title by adverse possession and was not entitled to protection under Section 53A.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's decree was set aside and the decree of the first appellate court restoring possession to the plaintiff was reinstated, resulting in success for the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: In second appeal, a High Court cannot reappreciate evidence to upset concurrent findings of fact unless a substantial question of law arises; permissive possession does not mature into adverse possession without clear hostile assertion and proof.

---