Second appeal jurisdiction and adverse possession against public land require strict statutory compliance and clear proof of hostile possession.

A second appeal is maintainable only on a framed substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC, and interference with findings of fact without meeting that threshold is impermissible. In the cited matter, the High Court's second appellate interference was found inconsistent with Section 100 and was reversed. On adverse possession against Government land, the claimant must prove open, continuous, exclusive and hostile possession with animus possidendi for the statutory period through clear pleading and cogent evidence; vague testimony and estimates were insufficient. The plea failed, the State's title was restored, and the respondents were not entitled to declaration of title over public land.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the second appeal was maintainable in the absence of a framed substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (ii) Whether the respondents had proved perfected title by adverse possession or were barred by Section 20 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957.

Issue (i): Whether the second appeal was maintainable in the absence of a framed substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: A second appeal can be entertained only when it involves a substantial question of law. The High Court had not framed any such question and had interfered with findings of fact beyond the limited jurisdiction conferred by Section 100. Interference in second appeal without satisfying the statutory threshold was impermissible.

Conclusion: The second appellate judgment was liable to be set aside as it did not conform to the requirements of Section 100.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondents had proved perfected title by adverse possession or were barred by Section 20 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957.

Analysis: A plea of adverse possession against Government land requires clear pleading and cogent proof of open, continuous, exclusive and hostile possession with animus possidendi for the statutory period. Mere long possession, vague testimony, or estimates based on the age of trees were insufficient. The bar under Section 20 did not defeat the suit on the facts, but the respondents independently failed to establish adverse possession to divest the State of title.

Conclusion: The claim of adverse possession was not proved and the respondents were not entitled to declaration of title over Government land.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's decree was reversed and the decree of the first appellate court in favour of the State was restored, leaving the Government's title intact.

Ratio Decidendi: In a second appeal, the High Court may interfere only on a framed substantial question of law, and a plea of adverse possession against public property succeeds only on clear, cogent proof of open, continuous and hostile possession with animus possidendi for the statutory period.

---