https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173705 Non-framing of a substantial question of law under Section 100(4) CPC does not, by itself, invalidate a second appellate judgment; the decisive test is whether the omission caused prejudice, and where the real controversy was fully understood and both sides had opportunity to adduce evidence, the decision is not vitiated. The plea of adverse possession must still satisfy hostile, open and continuous possession, reflected in nec vi, nec clam, nec precario, and the defendant failed to establish those ingredients on the facts found. The High Court's view rejecting adverse possession was therefore upheld, and the decree was restored in substance. en-us Tue, 27 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Nov 2015 21:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173705 Non-framing of a substantial question of law under Section 100(4) CPC does not, by itself, invalidate a second appellate judgment; the decisive test is whether the omission caused prejudice, and where the real controversy was fully understood and both sides had opportunity to adduce evidence, the decision is not vitiated. The plea of adverse possession must still satisfy hostile, open and continuous possession, reflected in nec vi, nec clam, nec precario, and the defendant failed to establish those ingredients on the facts found. The High Court's view rejecting adverse possession was therefore upheld, and the decree was restored in substance. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 27 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173705