Concurrent findings and adverse possession: second appeal limits and permissive tenancy defeated the defendant's claim.

A second appellate court cannot reappreciate evidence to disturb concurrent findings of fact unless those findings are perverse or unsupported by evidence. The Court also reaffirmed that possession beginning under a lease remains permissive unless tenancy is clearly terminated and hostile possession is openly asserted and brought home to the landlord. On the facts, the defendant failed to prove surrender, hostile re-entry, or adverse possession, and the suit was not barred by limitation under Article 139 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The plaintiff's title and possession were upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court was justified in interfering under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by reappreciating evidence and reversing concurrent findings of fact; (ii) Whether the defendant acquired title by adverse possession and whether the suit was barred by limitation under Article 139 of the Limitation Act, 1908.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court was justified in interfering under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by reappreciating evidence and reversing concurrent findings of fact.

Analysis: The lower courts had concurrently found, on the evidence, that the defendant entered possession as a tenant and that the plea of surrender and hostile re-entry was not established. In second appeal, the High Court was not entitled to reassess the evidence merely to substitute its own view unless the findings below were shown to be based on no evidence or otherwise unsustainable in law. The appellate court's view was supported by material and could not be displaced on mere reappreciation.

Conclusion: The High Court erred in interfering with the concurrent findings under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (ii): Whether the defendant acquired title by adverse possession and whether the suit was barred by limitation under Article 139 of the Limitation Act, 1908.

Analysis: The defendant's possession originated in a registered lease and remained permissive unless there was a clear and proved termination of the tenancy followed by open hostile possession to the knowledge of the landlord. The plea of surrender and independent hostile possession was disbelieved by the courts below. Further, the defendant asserted hostile title only in reply notice dated 27.4.1957 and the suit followed within five years. On those findings, Article 139 did not bar the suit, and Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 did not assist the defendant in claiming adverse possession on the facts found.

Conclusion: The defendant did not acquire title by adverse possession and the suit was not barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The decree of the courts below in favour of the plaintiff was restored, and the plaintiff's claim to title and possession stood upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A second appellate court cannot reappreciate evidence to disturb concurrent findings of fact unless those findings are shown to be perverse or unsupported by evidence, and possession that remains permissive under a tenancy does not become adverse without clear, proved hostile assertion brought home to the landlord.

---