https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184443 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. en-us Tue, 28 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Jul 2016 16:45:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184443 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 28 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184443